Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

The Transport Holding Company

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present value of assets owned by the Transport Holding Company; whether he will publish a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT appropriately categorised; and, having divested itself of its holding in Skyways Limited, what further hiving-off operations he proposes to require it to make.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I refer my hon. Friend to the Transport Holding Company's Annual Report and Accounts for 1969 and to my reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 27th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 131–2.]

Sir G. Nabarro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proceeding with the denationalisation of the assets of this undertaking, but will he confirm that his recent statement regarding Thomas Cook & Son represents a precursor in this respect and that it is his ultimate intention to divest himself of all the publicly owned assets in the undertaking named?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir. Any legislation dealing with Thomas Cook would comprise also a provision to wind up the Transport Holding Company.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, apart from Thomas Cook and the 38 per cent. holding in the Penarth Dock Company, there is not much left to hive off, and will he

say in which lots he proposes to offer Thomas Cook: will it be Thomas Cook, Lunn-Poly and the rest, or will he offer them separately?

Mr. Peyton: My advice is that legislation is necessary in order to sell Thomas Cook because legislation was introduced originally to create the Transport Holding Company, the duty of which was to hold Thomas Cook. Since then, the Transport Holding Company was unwise enough to acquire Lunn-Poly, which, I am happy to say, can be disposed of without legislation.

Mr. Crosland: What sort of private company does the right hon. Gentleman expect to purchase these normally profitable hived-off parts of nationalised industry? Will they be such shining examples of private enterprise efficiency as Rolls-Royce, Cammell Laird, Harland and Wolff or Mineral Securities?

Mr. Peyton: I doubt that that question from the right hon. Gentleman deserves to be taken seriously.

Rural Transport Services

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now make a statement on his examination of rural transport services, in particular the licensing of private minibus services, with special reference to depletion of routes and services in South Worcestershire.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): The rural pilot studies and the examination of the licensing system are making good progress. In the meantime, local authorities already have powers to assist rural services, and where existing operators withdraw there is much greater scope for mini-bus operators and others to apply successfully for licences.

Sir G. Nabarro: But is not my hon. Friend aware that, because of the straitened state of their finances, many smaller local authorities are not in a position to devote funds to rescuing rural transport? Will he give an assurance that in areas like South Worcestershire, now almost denuded of bus services, he will, through the licensing authorities, encourage the employment of private enterprise mini-buses and any transport


of a kind likely to prove mutually rewarding to both passengers and the undertaking?

Mr. Griffiths: I must tell my hon. Friend that the local authorities of Worcestershire, in financial difficulties though they may be, have agreed to support the rural services of Midland Red to the sum of £28,000. We are reviewing the licensing system to see whether more flexibility for mini-buses, among other things, can be achieved.

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the reports from his two study groups investigating the problems of rural transport in the South of England.

Mr. Peyton: In the Spring, Sir.

Mr. Clark: Does the Minister think that when the study groups report, the results for what are esentially rural parts of the country will be applicable to the semi-urban areas of the North and industrial parts of the country, which have increasing transport problems?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. We might learn something relevant. but the two inquiries are concerned with the rural aspect of the passenger transport problem. I accept that urban areas are by no means free of this exceedingly difficult and obstinate problem.

Mr. Arthur Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that when we have the reports we shall have had our third report on rural transport. The first was in 1935. Is not it time that action was taken on the matter and on the broadening of the licensing requirements?

Mr. Peyton: I should like to wait for the two reports, which I think will be helpful, because circumstances have changed fast, and for the worst, over the past few years. I hope very much that the reports will throw light on the action which should be taken.

New British Airports (Siting)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the siting of new British airports will be taken into account in the formulaion of regional policy.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a fundamentally different attitude among people in the South-East towards airports from that taken by people in the rest of the country, mainly because the South-East already has access to international airports, and will he look seriously at the site on Severnside which has been discussed as it is the only environmentally suitable site which will be within one hour of Central London by the time that advanced passenger trains are operating in 1978?

Mr. Walker: We shall give full consideration to all alternatives, but I find that, when an actual airport is likely to come, the attitudes in different parts of the country are strikingly similar.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not a fact that one of the reasons why people living around Heathrow are so hostile to aircraft noise is that the airport is unfortunately situated from the point of view of approach, so that aircraft approaching are compelled to fly over the populated areas of London? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the urgent need to reduce the amount of noise at and around Heathrow, and, whatever he proposes to do, will he make up his mind quickly, preferably in favour of an airport on the coast?

Mr. Walker: The House will have an opportunity to debate that issue, and thereafter the Government will come to their conclusion.

Mr. Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people living in the West Country have a substantially different attitude to the siting of a Severn-side airport from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley)?

Mr. Walker: I thought that that might be a possibility.

Rail Services (Grants)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is now able to make a further statement about grants to Southern Region railways services not extensively used by London commuters, as a result of his general review.

Mr. Peyton: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon Friend


the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and to what I told the hon. Member on 14th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 111–7.]

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty about some of the other peripheral Southern Region services, because so far he has referred only to the services which are considered to be London commuter services? When will he be in a position to tell the House something more definite about the rest of the Southern Region?

Mr. Peyton: As soon as I have completed the review, which is quite a long and complicated question.

Gatwick Station (Hotel)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on British Rail's application to him relating to the construction of an hotel over Gatwick station.

Mr. Peyton: This application would have involved an extension of the public sector. It was therefore unacceptable. It would also have meant further borrowing from the Exchequer.

Mr. Huckfield: I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for that even more novel illustration of the new Government's policy, or lack of it. Is not he aware that the British Railways Board is also under an obligation to make the maximum use of its existing economic resources? Is not it therefore detrimental to the finances of British Rail and the interests of the taxpayers as a whole that in this instance it is to be prevented from exercising the full use of its existing resources, and that a private firm will be deliberately allowed to go ahead instead?

Mr. Peyton: I have no objection to a private firm taking risks with its own money. I have every objection to British Rail doing so if it is compelled for the purpose to borrow from the Exchequer.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in early January conditions at Gatwick Airport were so chaotic that there were queues for lavatories and food, that men and women were lying on the floor—

Mr. Huckfield: That has nothing to do with the Question.

Mr. King: —because there were queues for chairs, and that the manager was absent? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend view with suspicion any further applications for facilities for nationalised industries?

Mr. Peyton: Greatly as I regret the terrible circumstances related by my hon. Friend, they have nothing to do with me.

Mr. Bradley: Is the Minister's reply to the Question a preliminary to an announcement that he intends to hive off British Transport Hotels Ltd.?

Mr. Peyton: I have not said so.

Conservation Areas

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the three counties in England which have designated the most conservation areas and the three counties which have designated the least, or none.

Mr. Peter Walker: The counties in England which have designated most conservation areas are Kent (84), Hertfordshire (78), and Warwickshire and Essex (each 75). Two counties (North Riding of Yorkshire and Rutland) have designated one each and Norfolk none. The number of areas so far designated does not necessarily represent the overall intentions of the authority, as many have further proposals for designation well advanced.

Mr. Cooke: While not making too much of those figures at an early stage in the scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend to keep the matter continually under review and perhaps to encourage certain authorities to get on with their work a little quicker?

Mr. Walker: Certainly. I am very anxious that authorities designate as many conservation areas as possible.

Durham County (Improvement of the Environment)

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improvement of the


environment in the county of Durham; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have made it clear that Durham will receive every encouragement from me with regard to the clearance of derelict land. The county of Durham already has an ambitious list of schemes for area improvement, the redevelopment of town centres, and the clearance of derelict land which I welcome.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities in Durham are very anxious to build on the substantial improvement in the environment that has been achieved in the past five or six years, and that despite the pledges which he has made, loan sanction is now being denied in my area for very worthwhile schemes? Will he give the House an assurance that the percentage improvement in the expenditure on the infrastructure achieved in the past five years will be maintained over the next five years?

Mr. Walker: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that I shall be proud of the substantial increase in the clearance of derelict land in Durham in the coming year as compared with previous years.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware that the new financial arrangements contained in the Circular 2/70 concerning the clearance of derelict land is a recipe for delay in that respect, and will he revert to the better system of the previous Government of making direct grants for this purpose? We in County Durham have too much derelict land.

Mr. Walker: I have made it clear in the House that we shall look into any adverse effects of the general formula of Circular 2/70 with regard to derelict land. We are in consultation with Durham County Council, and I do not think that it will be disappointed.

Thamesside Area (Ashlone Road Development)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, having regard to the need to protect the amenities of the Thamesside area in the matter of the Ashlone Road

development, he will call in all applications for planning permission relating to this site.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister look again at that answer? Is it not the case that the Thames area has been ruined by over-development and wrong development, by commercial and industrial development? Is it not necessary that if the Thames is to be preserved as an area of amenity, the Government should take some concern about the matter and should not allow doctrinaire belief in private enterprise to override their public duty?

Mr. Page: Of course the Government are concerned with the development of Thamesside as a very important matter of environment of the London scene. But it does not follow that I must call in and deal with all planning applications affecting Thamesside. This is a job for the responsible local planning authority.

Planning Blight (Compensation)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals regarding the reform of the law regarding compensation for planning blight.

Mr. Peter Walker: We are carrying out a comprehensive review of the compensation code, but it is too early to say what changes in the law may be needed. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) on 16th December, I shall make a statement when we have completed our review.—[Vol. 808, c. 1314.]

Mr. Blaker: While I recognise that the problems are very complex, is my right hon. Friend bearing in mind that every week more people are suffering anxiety and inconvenience, particularly in connection with road-building projects, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the law?

Mr. Walker: I am very well aware of this situation. Indeed, few constituencies are suffering more from it than my own.

Mr. Marsh: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the whole question


of planning blight now, why is there so much delay in dealing with the problem of injurious affection, given that the Government inherited clear proposals from the last Government eight months ago in a draft Bill?

Mr. Walker: I do not consider that the proposals left to us were in any way clear. They did not deal comprehensively with the total problem. If we are to deal with the matter we must apply the same principles over the whole sphere.

Manchester (Speaker's Forum)

Mr. Charles R. Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what application he has received from Manchester City Council for planning approvals in connection with the provision of a site for a speaker's forum in the centre of Manchester.

Mr. Graham Page: I have not been so approached.

Mr. Morris: Does the Minister accept that the provision of a site for open-air speakers in the centres of cities is an essential feature of life in many British cities? Will he do what he can to encourage Manchester City Council in this direction, against a background of 49 people having already been arrested in the city for fighting for this basic human right?

Mr. Page: So far as planning permission is required, it is a matter for the local planning authority, and one with which my right hon. Friend would not wish to interfere.

Mr. Heffer: Since the Government have decided in the Industrial Relations Bill to restrict the rights of journalists and others to express their opinions about industrial matters, would it not be a good gesture by the Government at least to let local authorities know that there should be speakers' corners in every part of the country?

Mr. Page: Of course the Government support freedom of speech, but setting aside a particular area is a matter for the local planning authority.

Rents

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the median rent of council dwellings; and what is the average fair rent determined

by rent assessment committees for Greater London, and also for England and Wales as a whole.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): At 31st March, 1969, the average unrebated weekly rent of council dwellings was £2·75 (£2 15s. 0d.) in Greater London and £2·04 (£2 0s. 9d.) in England and Wales as a whole. The average fair rent determined by rent assessment committees in 1970 was £5·90 (£5 18s. 0d.) a week in Greater London and £4·95 (£4 19s. 0d.) in England and wales.

Mr. Tebbit: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent scaremongering by certain people who have particular political axes to grind, it would be prudent if he brought forward as soon as possible the outline of the proposals for rent subsidies for tenants in need?

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend is engaged in discussions with the local authority associations. I would point out to him that this comparison gives no useful guidance on how it will apply to the local authority system.

Mr. Crosland: The House must get this straight. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding of his reply, that the difference between the present unrebated average rent level and the likely unrebated fair rent level will be well over 100 per cent. for most council house tenants?

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my last answer. I said that the comparison gave no useful guidance to rent increases in the public sector because of the large differences in location, type and condition between the two groups of rents.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Has my hon. Friend seen the details of the G.L.C. rent rebate scheme, which is one of the most generous in the country and allows 17,000 tenants to have generous rent rebates, with the likelihood of that number being increased to over 23,000 in the next two years?

Mr. Channon: I know the details. We are to have rent rebates in both the private and the public sectors on a scale never proposed before.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman give an immediate assurance, in view of his statement, that no proposal will be brought to the House to extend the fair rents scheme until a full study has been made of its likely effect on council house rents?

Mr. Channon: It would be ridiculous to bring forward a scheme without such a study, and of course it will require legislation.

Mr. Allason: In view of the concern which will arise from my hon. Friend's reply, will he give the figure for a typical flat corresponding to the typical council house, which would give us a better indication of what the proportional rise might be?

Mr. Channon: The difficulty in this system so far is that fair rents in dwellings so far assessed are of a different kind from those which exist largely for council house dwellings throughout the country. I note what my hon. Friend said, but I cannot give him an answer now.

Mr. Crosland: To say that there is "concern" is the understatement of the year. The hon. Gentleman cannot quote figures and then say that they are meaningless. His Department must have some idea of what the average rise in rents is likely to be as a result of fair rents in the council house sector. The hon. Gentleman's reply appeared to suggest it might easily be up to —3 a week. Is this broadly the case or not?

Mr. Channon: For the second time, the right hon. Gentleman has not listened to my replies. I gave my original reply in response to the form of the Question on the Order Paper. But I am entitled to point out that the comparisons are not valid for the public sector. I answered the Question which I was asked to answer. What the House must also face, as my right hon. Friend pointed out repeatedly on 3rd November and subsequently, is that any increase for the public sector rents will be phased over a period of years.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now state the expected total increases in rent likely to be paid by council house tenants

as a result of the policy outlined in New Policy for Public Spending.

Mr. Amery: Under the reform of housing finance the rents paid by council tenants will depend on the fair rent fixed for their dwellings. But these rents will be reduced by rebates for those tenants who cannot afford the fair rent.

Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that in New Policy for Public Spending it was stated that the reduction in public expenditure would be between £100 and £200 million a year by comparison with projections on the basis of the existing system? If that sum is not to come from council tenants, from where is it to come?

Mr. Amery: There will be a saving to the Exchequer by a reduction of subsidy, though much of this will be offset by additional expenditure on rebates and slum clearance.

Mr. Crosland: Will not two things occur—first, an increase in rents due to saving in subsidies and, secondly, an increase in rents due to going over to the principle of fair rents in the council house sector? Will the Government give some idea of what the average, unrebated fair rent is likely to be?

Mr. Amery: I hope to make a statement to the House when my discussions with the local authority associations are completed.

Council House Sales (Instructions to Estate Agents)

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prohibit local authorities from instructing estate agents to effect sales of local authority houses.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): No, Sir. Some local authorities find estate agents useful in selling their houses and I see no reason for depriving them of this assistance.

Mr. Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no local authorities, within the Inner London area at least, where there is obviously great housing need, will embark on a policy of this kind? Is it not sheer lunacy for


such authorities to embark on the sale of council houses, having regard to housing needs? It is not adding insult to injury to expect ratepayers to bear the very high commissions which estate agents would demand for the sale of council houses?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The use of estate agents very often is more economic than the use of a council's own resources. The burden is not entirely borne by the council or the purchaser. It is usually shared.

Captain W. Elliot: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is no decrease in the housing stock whether the occupant owns a house or rents it?

Mr. Amery: My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Anyone who purchases a house, particularly if it is outside council property, very often makes a council house available for someone else.

Preston By-Pass

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now place in the firm programme the Preston northerly by-pass.

Mr. Graham Page: Preparatory work has not yet reached the stage at which a firm programming decision can be taken.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economic rate of return on this road would be the highest so far of any major road project in Lancashire and that the reduction in the number of accidents would be very great? Is he therefore treating the project with the urgency that it deserves?

Mr. Page: I shall press ahead with this road because I believe that it will result in a considerable reduction in the accident rate. The basic features are now being considered. The proposals for the route will be published in the spring. When the work actually starts depends on programming, about which I hope that a decision will be taken about the end of this year.

Desalination

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in view of the technical lead established by the

Atomic Energy Authority and Simon Carves Limited in desalination by a freezing process, he will encourage the establishment of a large-scale experimental desalination plant in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am considering a recommendation from the Water Resources Board for expenditure by the Board of over £1 million for the construction of an experimental plant to test a freeze desalination process. The plant would be commissioned and operated jointly with the Atomic Energy Authority and Simon Engineering Ltd. I expect to give my decision on the Board's recommendation very shortly.

Sir G. Sinclair: I take some enocuragement from that reply. In deciding how far to back this experiment, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if successful, it could help to call a halt to the progressive inundation of our countryside by reservoirs, could help to avert the water crisis threatened for the South-East in the 1980s, and could make a contribution to the dry coastal areas of the developing countries?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. We face considerable problems in relation to future water resources and the Government will examine every possibility of overcoming them.

Mr. Denis Howell: What is the economic basis of this proposal from the Water Resources Board in terms of the cost per thousand gallons? No reference was made to this on Second Reading of the Water Resources Bill.

Mr. Walker: This is a complicated matter. It depends on the total use made, and so on. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further information.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, on existing information, the costs of any desalination programme will render it wildly uneconomic? Will he bring the matter into perspective and say that there is no prospect in the near future of this process resolving our water resources problems?

Mr. Walker: The costs are high, and it would be wrong to give the impression that the process could solve the problems. Nevertheless it is right to go carefully into


the question of future research into possible solutions.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the considerable success of the co-operation between the Atomic Energy Authority and Weir Westgarth on flash distillation, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the reasons for the present redundancies at Weir Westgarth and give an assurance that, although the costs may be too high for domestic use, the use of these plants abroad makes research in the field still justifiable?

Mr. Walker: Export potential is obviously a consideration. I should like further notice of the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if this experiment turns out to be viable and successful, it will not be completely handed over to private enterprise but that the Atomic Energy Authority will be allowed to retain an interest?

Mr. Walker: I think that the idea, if highly successful, will be handed over to Ipswich Council.

New British Airports (Siting)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in support of the Roskill Commission's recommendation of an inland site for a new national airport.

Mr. Peter Walker: In addition to the Early Day Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and others, I have received 11 representations in favour of the Commission's recommendation.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in South Kensington and other parts of central London we find the noise nuisance from aircraft travelling overhead to Heathrow well nigh intolerable? Would he take note of the fact that a substantial body of opinion is determined that the new national airport shall not be sited at Cublington?

Mr. Walker: I take note of my hon. Friend's views on the intolerable noise of South Kensington.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite certain that a third London airport is necessary at all? Has he studied the well-informed article in a recent issue of the Economist, by its aviation correspondent, suggesting that it may not be necessary at this time?

Mr. Walker: I have studied many articles, all supposedly well-informed and most conflicting on this topic. It is a matter which will be debated in the House and thereafter the Government will reach their decision.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has given to the choice of an estuary site for a new national airport.

Mr. Peter Walker: This possibility will be taken into account in the Government's study of the Roskill Commission's Report.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend give most serious and open-minded consideration to the possibility of siting the new national airport on Severnside?

Mr. Walker: We shall give the most careful consideration to all the possibilities.

Mr. Allason: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be perfectly possible to put runways at Foulness considerably further away from Kent, thus obviating one of the main objections to Foulness, which is the disturbance to Kent?

Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's comments.

Compulsory Purchase (Lists of Properties)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give new directions to local authorities advising them to disregard the recommendations regarding the keeping of five-year lists of properties which may be compulsorily purchased, contained in Circular 54/55 relating to Part III of the Housing Act, 1957.

Mr. Channon: No, Sir. The advice contained in that circular sought to ensure that intending house purchasers were aware of any proposed slum clearance


action of the council likely to affect the property they were interested in. I think that information of this nature is just as necessary in 1971 as in 1955.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that such lists have resulted in considerable hardship to owners, far outweighing any consideration of the protection of prospective purchase, and that very often the first time that owners know that their property is on such a list is when its sale is being negotiated? Will he direct local authorities to curtail these lists as far as possible?

Mr. Channon: As my hon. Friend knows, on a number of occasions local authorities have been urged to give sympathetic consideration to buying in advance from owner-occupiers who have good reason for selling and who would suffer hardship from inability to do so. I should like to consider what she said, but I am advised that her suggestion would cause more hardship than it relieved.

Mr. Kaufman: will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to link the review of compulsory purchase law with a review of planning blight, as there are many constituents of mine in the Chorlton-on-Medlock area of Manchester who are suffering grave inconvenience, not only from necessary building operations which are taking place next door to where they live, but also because they fear that because of planning blight they will not be able to sell their homes for satisfactory sums and will have to accept a knock-down price from the council on compulsory purchase?

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It is not necessary to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion, for the review for which the hon. Gentleman asks is already taking place.

A40 (Gloucester Road Signs)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major road signs there are, between London and Gloucester on the A40 which name the city of Gloucester; and how many of these signs are placed at a distance of more than 38 miles from the city of Gloucester.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Gloucester appears on 21 modern signs of which three are more than 38 miles from Gloucester.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is totally inadequate signposting for a capital city of a county? Is he aware that on the same stretch of the A40 between London and Gloucester there are no fewer than 68 signs indicating the city of Cheltenham, which has a smaller population than Gloucester? Would he therefore take immediate steps to end this conspiracy of secrecy as to the whereabouts of Gloucester?

Mr. Griffiths: While I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to expedite traffic going to any city which was so fortunate as to be represented by my hon. Friend, the fact is that Cheltenham is the first city of traffic importance beyond Oxford and therefore inevitably pre-empts some signs. But that is geography and not some secret malice on the part of my Department.

Francis Committee (Report)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to improve the position of tenants of furnished accommodation, following his consideration of the report of the Francis Committee.

Mr. Money: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to receive the recommendations of the Francis Committee in respect of furnished tenancies.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Francis Committee's report on the working of the Rent Act has been received and will be published as soon as possible. I am now considering what action needs to be taken but I have nothing to say at this stage.

Mr. Barnes: Would not the Secretary of State agree that there are two improvements which tenants of furnished property desperately need; first, that there should be some security of tenure comparable with that of unfurnished tenancies, except, perhaps, where there is the landlord in the same house; secondly, that they should have the benefits of the rent rebate scheme which the Govern-


ment are proposing? Do the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend realise that in the big cities there are many people whose permanent home is a furnished or partly furnished flat and that they need something doing for them?

Mr. Walker: I appreciate the problems, and when the report is published, hon. Members on both sides of the House will find that it has many constructive suggestions for tackling the problems. It is a complicated report and I ask hon. Members to await its publication and to see what action we take.

Mr. Marsh: In the light of his answer, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the very detailed account of the report recently appearing in a London evening newspaper, by Mr. Des Wilson, was untrue and gave a misleading picture of the report; and, if it were not untrue, how can he tell the House that we have to wait until the report is published when it is clearly available to the Press?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Des Wilson was primarily concerned with only one aspect, and mainly with the view of the minority part of the report. The details of the report have not been published in the Press to my knowledge. There is a great deal in it which hon. Members should await.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend abolish furnished rent tribunals and transfer the duty of assessing the rent for furnished property to the existing fair rents system?

Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's comment, but I ask him to await full publication of the report, which is complicated and detailed. The Government will then issue a full statement of their views.

Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many officials of his Department attended trials of the Dragon Kerb Road Safety Barrier; and when the Road Research Laboratory was consulted regarding an assessment of this barrier.

Mr. Peyton: One member of my Department has attended trials on two

occasions. The Road Research Laboratory has been consulted.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this device was featured in the B.B.C. programme, "Tomorrow's World", that it has not yet failed in tests up to a speed of 55 m.p.h. and that if one hits the barrier at 55 m.p.h., one comes away unscathed, which is more than can be said for most barriers along British motorways?

Mr. Peyton: I have a great regard for what my hon. Friend says, of course, but I do not believe that this device has yet been subjected to a sufficiently complete range of tests. Before I thought that I was justified in adopting a new device for such a purpose, such tests would certainly be necessary. I must tell my hon. Friend that I know about the film. My Department suggested to the company concerned that it should make it available but did not receive a very helpful response.

Council House Programme (Birmingham)

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what special action he proposes to take to assist the county borough of Birmingham to maintain its construction of council houses.

Mr. Channon: Birmingham City Council knows that my right hon. Friend will willingly consider any proposals which it puts to him.

Mr. Silverman: Specifically, I have in mind that the present cut-back in council house building in Birmingham is due mainly to the shortage of building land. Would the hon. Gentleman therefore expedite his consideration and confirmation of the North Worcestershire compulsory purchase order? More generally, would he bear in mind when he announces his rents policy that if it contains a general reduction in or abolition of the general subsidies for council houses, it will inevitably result in a drastic further reduction of council house building in Birmingham and elsewhere?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to reach a decision on the compulsory purchase order application very soon. I refer the hon.


Gentleman to an earlier answer about housing finance. Negotiations are taking place.

Home Ownership

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement of his plans to increase the availability of mortgages for houses for owner-occupation built before 1919.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking for the further encouragement of home ownership.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to initiate proposals for the extension of the opportunities for house ownership, especially for newly married young people; and what will be the estimated cost to public funds.

Mr. Amery: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the City of Bradford some 50,000 houses out of the total housing stock of 102,000 were built before the first world war and that much of the impetus of the House Improvement Scheme will be lost if young couples cannot obtain that sort of property?

Mr. Amery: I will have my hon. Friend's point very much in mind in the discussions.

Mr. Hamilton: Is there any truth in all the rumours in the Press about the right hon. Gentleman's ideas for helping young married couples? Can he say how soon he will be making a statement, and whether it will include a reduction in interest charges, which is a large part of the problem?

Mr. Amery: I hope to make a statement before very long, but I would rather not expatiate at this stage on the different proposals I have been discussing with the building societies and local authorities.

Mr. Freeson: Is there not a fast way in which the Government could take action in this respect? Most mortgages for old property are derived from local authority sources. Would the Minister consider reviewing the annual allocation

from which local authorities can lend money for this purpose and increase it as soon as possible?

Mr. Amery: I very much hope that in this respect we shall be able to do a great deal better than did the previous Administration.

Small Firms (Collection of Statistics)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in view of the fact that the building 'and construction industry and the timber trade are characterised by a large number of small units, he will consider the use of sampling techniques to replace the collection of statistics on a universal basis, thereby removing some of the administrative burdens imposed on individual firms.

Mr. Channon: Sampling techniques are already widely used in the collection of statistics from the construction industry. The Standing Consultative Committee for Statistics of the National Consultative Council for the Building and Civil Engineering Industries is examining generally the collection of statistics on construction.

Mr. Hicks: Is the Minister aware that in the context both of the national economy and of regional economies, such as that of the South-West, these industries play a major role, and that any further assistance in reducing the financial overheads arising from the time spent in form-filling will be most welcome and also will provide a stimulus to a more efficient use of resources?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree that there is nothing more ridiculous than filling in forms which are a waste of time. I hope that the report will be speeedily available and will be generally helpful.

Mr. Maddan: Would my hon. Friend say what statistical professional resources his Department has and does he consider them adequate to cope with the introduction of sampling techniques for many of the records kept by his Department?

Mr. Channon: I think they are adequate, but if my hon. Friend has a detailed point perhaps he would put down a Question.

Trunk Road Roundabouts (Warning Signs)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange for words of warning or other similar devices to be placed on the road surfaces of trunk roads on the approaches to roundabouts.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Road markings and traffic signs are already provided.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that in foggy weather some roundabouts are turned quite regularly into battlefields and that this is often caused by the fact that the driver's attention is directed to the road surface rather than to the signs at the side of the road? Will he carry out experiments in those cases where there have been bad accidents in fog to see whether warning signs written on road surfaces would provide a means of reducing the large number of accidents which occur in this way?

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is on an important point in regard to foggy weather conditions. I am advised that before most roundabouts the signs on roads which motorists observe change from small white lines to longer ones, thus identifying that a roundabout is nearly ahead. If my hon. Friend has a particular roundabout in mind, I shall be glad to look at the details.

South Aston Redevelopment (Birmingham)

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision upon the Birmingham County Borough's South Aston Redevelopment Order.

Mr. Graham Page: The statutory processes will not be completed before March. If there are no further objections, I may be able to announce a decision by Easter.

Mr. Silverman: I hope the Minister will expedite his consideration because the people in this area are living in intolerable circumstances in the interim period awaiting redevelopment, with some houses which are boarded up and others which are lived in but with vandalism rife. Will the Minister do whatever he can to expedite consideration of this matter?

Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. This is a very important development area, and I am anxious that we should proceed with it as quickly as possible. In November Birmingham asked for a major modification of the development plan, which was advertised a few days ago, and objectors will have 21 days in which to make representations. We shall proceed as quickly as possible according to the statutory procedures.

Mr. Chapman: Bearing in mind the tremendous demand and enthusiasm for private housing in this part of Birmingham, would my hon. Friend see that at least 50 per cent. of the houses built will be for owner-occupation?

Mr. Page: This is a matter for the local planning authority to decide, but it is a principle which we should certainly support.

Local Authority Rates (Increase)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in rates for 1971–72, on the basis of the initial batch of local authority estimates.

Mr. Graham Page: None, Sir. A great many rating authorities have still to make their decisions.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there has already been a record number of highest-ever rate increases announced, significantly in the same year as that in which the Government have halved the domestic element of the rate support grant? Will the hon. Gentleman compliment his Tory colleagues in Tory county councils on their sympathetic action in breaking election pledges?

Mr. Page: Local authorities are faced with substantial increases in wages and other costs, part of which will inevitably fall on the ratepayer, but central Government grants will cover 57½ per cent. of the increase and the domestic ratepayer will be further protected by a 2·8d. increase in domestic rate relief.

Mr. John Silkin: In view of the Government's change of policy on the domestic rate element and rate support grant, would he not accept the estimate


made by the Financial Times that the average increase in domestic rates would be between 12· per cent. and 15 per cent. in 1971–72? Would he not regard that as the deepest and most disastrous form of inflation?

Mr. Page: This is a purely tentative forecast and there is insufficient information as yet to support it.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to allow expenditure by local authorities on concessionary bus fares for retirement pensioners under the 1968 Transport Act to be eligible for rate support grant.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.

Mr. Clark: Does the Minister realise that this will cause considerable concern among many smaller authorities? Does he realise that the smaller authorities are not able to introduce concessionary fares because geographically they are away from the centres of communication and therefore the bus fare subsidy has to be greater than in a truly urban area; and that, in addition, for many of the smaller authorities a penny rate will raise only £1,000?

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter for local authorities to decide for themselves. They are spending their own money, and they can make the best judgment of the local needs of their own people.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the setting up of the transport authorities, and particularly the proposals for the reorganisation of local government, there is widespread concern that many pensioners who now enjoy concessionary fares might be relieved of the opportunity of using them? In his talks on the future of local government, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that people who now enjoy free or cheap travel—old-age pensioners—retain that privilege?

Mr. Griffiths: I repeat that it is for local authorities to decide what best to do with their own money for their own people.

Mr. Bob Brown: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that countless thousands

of old-age pensioners are being deprived of concessionary fares, to which they are entitled, by the parsimonious attitude of Tory councils throughout the country? Does he not think that it is high time that Whitehall Tories started to talk to town hall Tories to encourage them to give this facility to old-age pensioners?

Mr. Griffiths: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself is that we on this side of the House believe that local authorities should make their own judgment about the expenditure of their own money.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While warmly supporting what my hon. Friend has just said, may I ask whether he does not feel that concessionary fares create unfairness between pensioners who can use, or wish to use, public transport and those who do not wish to use, or are unable to use, it? Is not the right course to have proper pensions?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that my hon. Friend's last point will be noted by my right hon. Friend who bears responsibility for pensions. I agree with him that one of the objections to the fare concession is that it is totally indiscriminate.

Passenger Transport Authority (S.E.L.N.E.C.)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the deficit incurred by the South-East Lancashire North-East Cheshire Passenger Transport Authority during its first year of operations; what deficit was originally forecast for its first year of operations; what are the reasons for the discrepancy; and what deficit has been forecast for the current year of operations.

Mr. Peyton: These are matters for the S.E.L.N.E.C. Passenger Transport Authority and Executive to whom my hon. Friend should direct his inquiries.

Housing Cost Yardstick

Mr. James Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the relationship between the housing cost yardstick and the Parker Morris Standards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: The cost yardstick reflects minimum standards based on the


Parker Morris Report. The level and structure of the yardstick are under examination in the light of views expressed by the local authority associations.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these two standards pull against and are directly opposed to each other? Often no tender is acceptable and consequently the local authorities must go out to tender again, which could be a reason for the delay in the council housing programme.

Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a danger that mounting costs can lead to the yardstick hitting standards, as it were, between Parker and Morris. That is why we are looking into the matter.

Housing Starts

Mr. James Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of housing starts, both actual and seasonally adjusted for the three months October to December, 1970, inclusive; and what were the comparable figures for the previous three months.

Mr. Amery: Starts in Great Britain in the fourth quarter of 1970 were 77,600 compared with 88,100 in the third quarter. The seasonally adjusted figures were 83,300 and 85,100 respectively.

Mr. Hill: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me those figures. His reply highlights the importance which we must give to this problem, and I hope that the Francis Report will go at least some way towards solving it.

Mr. Amery: I share my hon. Friend's hope.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that, quite apart from the Government's ideological dislike for council housing, there is bound to be a further reduction in the number of council houses started when, as has already been announced, he reduces the subsidy?

Mr. Amery: The present system has led to the existence of a cosseted and privileged class in our society—the council house tenant. These people are jealous of their privileged position—because a council house is a prize hard to come by. … Charge the rich man £1,000 a year rent—that'll sort the problem out".

Hon. Members: Squalid.

Mr. Amery: I am quoting the view of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

Mr. Boyden: On a point of order. Is it not entirely out of order to make quotations at Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: I have not yet heard anything which is out of order from the Minister.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in an interview given to the People on 6th February, 1966. Of course I would not dream of going so far myself. I entirely disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, but perhaps it helps to answer the point of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).

Mr. John Fraser: Is it not the case that the reduction in housing starts has occurred largely in the local authority sector? On Monday the Minister went to my constituency. Will he also go to boroughs like Croydon where a woman has to live in a car because of the cutback in council housing and make sure—[Laughter.] This is not funny: some people live in cars. Will the Minister go to Croydon and other boroughs like it, including Bexley, which is as badly run as the Government, and ensure that local authorities get back to a reasonable level of council house starts to solve the problem? Will he make sure that his fellow Tories in the local authorities get on with the job which they were elected to do?

Mr. Amery: I am well aware of the situation which the hon. Gentleman has described. It is part of the ghastly heritage we have received from the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have asked the London boroughs to build more council houses. I have asked them to release more land to build houses for sale. I am also asking them to set up more housing advisory centres to help sort out people's problems.

Selective Employment Tax (Building and Construction)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give an estimate of the amount which the direct labour departments of local


authorities engaged in new construction will have to pay in respect of the selective employment tax during the financial year 1970–1971, on the basis of the present rates of the tax; what is the equivalent figure in respect of maintenance workers, prior to the tax being refunded to local authorities; and what are the equivalent figures for private contractors.

Mr. Channon: I estimate that the figures for the directly employed labour of local authorities are £5 million and £17 million. The corresponding estimates for private contractors are £90 million and £40 million.

Mr. Allason: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that there is a disparity between the treatment of private enterprise and that of public enterprise in this matter? If so, is he satisfied that it is fair?

Mr. Chanson: Of course I am not satisfied that it is fair. It is part of the ridiculous operation of this ludicrous tax.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman doing anything about helping the backward areas and gingering them up to carry out their housing responsibilities?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure what that has to do with the Question. The Question is about selective employment tax, which we on this side of the House are pledged to abolish.

Central Lancashire New Town

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government policy with regard to the central Lancashire new town.

Mr. Dan Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make a statement with regard to the proposal for a new town in Lancashire.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the central Lancashire new town.

Mr. Peter: I would refer the right hon. Member and hon. Members to the statement which I made to the House on 3rd February.

Mr. Davidson: I remember that statement well and was able to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on it. However, would he bear in mind that one of the fears which North-East Lancashire has, and had under the previous Government's plans, was that young people would drift away from the area and fall for the allurement of a new town? Therefore, will he favourably consider passing on to his right hon. Friend my plea that at some stage North-East Lancashire should be given full development area status to ensure that new industry goes to it?

Mr. Walker: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Only last week I agreed witħ local authorities throughout the North-West to commence the preparation of a regional strategy, and I hope that that will help the problem of the North-East Lancashire towns.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what steps the Government will take to see that the central Lancashire town will avoid the ghastly mistakes which were made in the case, for example, of the Skelmersdale New Town and other new towns of that type?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will soon be announcing the members of the Development Corporation, and I believe that they will be seen to be of the calibre and status to provide an excellent new town.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the creation of the new town in Lancashire presents us with an opportunity of creating that social and economic balance which has long been denied in Lancashire, and is there any necessity for private developers and public developers in the architectural sense for the town being at such great variance?

Mr. Walker: I very much agree. I think that they can work together side by side to provide a very good environment for that part of Lancashire.

Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable enthusiasm in Lancashire for the plans which he has already announced, and that they are regarded by many people in that area as a considerable improvement on the


original ideas for the development of a new town in Lancashire?

Mr. Walker: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Post Office dispute.
When I reported to the House on Monday, the Post Office and the union were meeting following the Post Office's suggestion that the two sides should meet to discuss the possibility of finding measures to improve efficiency which would enable the Post Office's offer to be increased without adding to costs.
In these discussions, the Post Office tabled a proposal to increase its offer to 9 per cent. in return for a specific commitment by the union to action to increase efficiency.
The union's executive met the same day to consider this improved offer and rejected it, its negotiators having first tabled during the joint meeting a paper which specifically stated that the offer must be increased from 9 per cent. to 13 per cent. without any conditions whatsoever.
In its letter of rejection the union proposed that the two sides should have private meetings under the chairmanship of an independent mediator.
The Post Office came to see me yesterday, at its request, to report the position which had been reached. I also thought it right to invite the U.P.W. to see me, so that I could be fully informed of its position and in particular clarify with it the precise meaning of its proposal for a mediator. It explained to me that in its view the mediator would be empowered to attempt concilation but would have no authority to put forward any recommended settlement in the event of the parties failing to agree. At the union's request, I then conveyed to the Post Office the explanation which the union had given me of its conception of the mediator's rôle.
The Post Office representatives then left me in order to consider their decision with their colleagues and, as the House will

know, they announced late last night that they were unable to accept the union's proposal on the ground that they could not see how mediation of the type suggested could resolve the difference on amount and on the question of productivity. The Post Office reiterated its view that arbitration remained the right course for resolving the dispute, but the union has since reaffirmed its refusal to consider arbitration.
In the circumstances, I regret to have to inform the House that the deadlock continues.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unyielding attitude of the Corporation has only succeeded in stiffening the determination of the postal workers to continue their action, and that the country, therefore, now faces an indefinite strike, with increasing dislocation of private and commercial convenience? Is he also aware that Mr. Ryland has made it pretty clear that he is prepared to pay more, if only somebody would tell him to do so. [HON. EMBERS: "Oh."]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is useless for him to continue to say that the union ought to go to arbitration in a situation in which no clear wages policy has been worked out by the new Corporation to take the place of the Civil Service pay principles under which these workers used to be dealt with, and that when the right hon. Gentleman tells the House that other Post Office unions have gone to arbitration he is failing to point out that the union concerned, the Association of Post Office Executives, has made it clear that it has gone to arbitration in a very different situation, where the pay claim was being dealt with on a Civil Service basis, and that the association has made it clear that it supports the Union of Post Office Workers, the postal workers, in refusing to go to arbitration where no clear criteria have yet been laid down?
In view Of this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—in view of this, have not the Government a clear and urgent public duty to break this deadlock by the personal conciliation efforts of the right hon. Gentleman really bringing the two sides together and trying to find a settlement, or by the appointment of an independent mediator, or by setting up a court of inquiry?

Mr. Carr: I think it would be better—I would like to say this to the House—if we did not indulge in questions and comments which involve criticising or praising one side or the other.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady, however, has made some—would the hon. Gentleman like to interrupt me?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. One of my hon. Friends made a statement in the heat of the moment. I do not know whether he meant it. I am wondering whether it is in order for him to repeat it.

Mr. Heffer: I will repeat it. I said the right hon. Gentleman is "a bloody hypocrite".

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw that. It is not a parliamentary expression. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. Heffer: If it is not a parliamentary expression I will withdraw the unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Carr: Since the right hon. Lady has raised these points, I must reply to them to some extent. She chose to criticise the attitude of the employers for being unyielding. The employers have in fact twice increased their offer.

Mr. Mikardo: Do not take sides.

Mr. Carr: The union over the weekend has reduced its claim from 19 per cent.—I think of that order—to 13 per cent. So both sides have not been unyielding, but the gap is still very big, and the union has been at least as unyielding as the Post Office on certain matters—for example, on its attitude to arbitration and on its complete refusal to discuss any increase in the offer with any conditions attached to it whatsoever in relation to productivity; on that the union has been utterly unyielding so far. The right hon. Lady referred to Mr. Ryland being prepared to pay more if anyone would tell him to do so. That is completely incorrect. What Mr. Ryland has said all along is that he and his colleagues do not believe that their existing offer of 8 per cent.—or rather, the total cost of their existing 8 per cent.

offer—can be increased without their having to ask for yet further increases in postal charges which they do not think there ought to be, not only from the public's point of view but from the point of view of their own industry because of the effect any increase might have in causing a decline in their business. He has, however, said all along that, since he was a party to an arbitration agreement, he would be prepared to go to arbitration and abide by it even though it went against him and he had to ask for increased charges. The union will not accept arbitration. I cannot accept the arguments of the right hon. Lady because, if they are valid, why did the union sign the arbitration agreement as recently as last August? Had this been a long-standing arbitration which had been brought with the Post Office from its previous incarnation under different circumstances, there might possibly be something in that, but the union signed the agreement last August in full knowledge of the conditions.

Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that if there had been a secret ballot before the dispute the strike would never have taken place? Can he tell us whether any machinery exists whereby there could now be a vote on either the original offer of 8 per cent. or the revised offer of 9 per cent. with strings, so that the rank and file voice of the postal workers could be heard?

Mr. Carr: No precise machinery exists for that, although Mr. Jackson has in the past put an offer on ballot to his membership and has spoken of the possibility of doing so on this occasion when he has an offer which he is prepared to recommend. So far there has been no question of it, nor is there any automatic machinery available for balloting the membership on the offer as it stands at the moment.

Mr. Mikardo: If it is inevitably a matter of speculation whether a meeting under an independent mediator might produce progress, is it not nevertheless the case that it could not possibly do any harm? Since anything is preferable to deadlock, will not the right hon. Gentleman suggest to Mr. Ryland that at least it is worth a shot? If it cannot do any harm, it might just do some good.

Mr. Carr: The view of the Post Office, as I understand, is that the discussions have been so long and the gap is so great, not only about the amount but about the attitude to tying anything to productivity, that the Post Office needs the help of somebody who, in addition to conciliating, can make recommendations and decisions. This is part of the gap between the two parties. My services and the services of my Department have been available, are available and will be available.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In regard to the allegation, for which it appears there is no evidence, that Mr. Ryland would be willing to pay more if somebody would tell him to do so, was not one of the objects of the Act, setting up the Corporation, introduced by the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a member, to enable the Corporation to take its own commercial judgment without Ministers perpetually breathing down its neck?

Mr. Carr: I certainly understood that that was one of the objects of the policy.

Mr. Bidwell: Mr. Ryland may be afraid of getting the sack, as his predecessor did, if he gives way. I am mystified about the rôle of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Could not he be made redundant and his salary paid to the pool to assist the poor oppressed postal workers?

Mr. Carr: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman feels that question contributes to the solution of this public trouble. Anyone who has met and dealt with Mr. Ryland, as I have done in the last few weeks, could not make that sort of charge against him.

Sir T. Brinton: So that we may get the figures in perspective, will my right hon. Friend remind the House how long ago was the last major settlement of Post Office workers' wages and how much it was?

Mr. Carr: The last major settlement was the one which came into force on 1st January, 1970. The dispute is about the agreement which should have started, and presumably will start, from 1st January, 1971, once it has been agreed. The January, 1970 settlement was, I think, of the order of 12 per cent.

Mr. Heller: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being totally hypocritical in suggesting to the House that he is sitting on the fence and not taking sides in this conflict? Have not the right hon. Gentleman and the Government throughout the conflict been behind the Corporation in its endeavours to keep the postmen's wages down? Since the union has no strike fund, is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman and the Corporation are trying to starve the union into submission, and is it not time that he got off the fence and started genuinely using his mediation services to get something done to solve the dispute?

Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. If the attitude of myself and my officials is as the hon. Gentleman has described it, or was thought to be so by the parties concerned, it is surprising that only last night when I stressed to Mr. Jackson and his colleagues that before the Post Office Board made its decision it should be fully aware of what the union meant by its mediation proposal and suggested that the union should meet the Post Office again to make sure that it did understand, Mr. Jackson said that he completely trusted me and would prefer me to convey that understanding. I cannot believe Mr. Jackson would have done that in the presence of six fellow members of his executive if the charge made against me by the hon. Gentleman were true.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Heffer: I withdraw nothing.

Mr. Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), as expressed in the House and elsewhere, could, and no doubt does, have an important influence on the future of the negotiations? Does not my right hon. Friend agree also that this is neither the moment nor the issue to induce mean, cheap party political considerations?

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it seems to most of us that automatically in all matters on every occasion he takes the employers' point of view? I say to him sincerely, would it not help him greatly in this difficult task if, for once, he would say that he believes


the union is right and the employer is wrong?

Mr. Carr: I do not believe that it is my duty, or that it has been seen as the job of any of my predecessors, to express points of view of that kind, because I do not believe that in this or in any similar matter which comes before me right or wrong is always entirely on one side.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the national interest that all of us in this House, however deeply we may disagree on many matters, should uphold the highest reputation of arbitration, and that unless we all uphold the impartiality of arbitration the long-term interests of the country will be damaged?

Mr. Mikardo: Ask Jack Scamp.

Mr. Carr: My hon. and gallant Friend has made this point before. I believe it is essential that both sides of industry should be prepared—while the normal practice must be to reach agreement by negotiation—on occasions when negotiations cannot succeed, to accept and abide by arbitration. I see no alternative if we are to have a more orderly and peaceful industrial society.

Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman wants this independent assessment—and he knows the feeling of the union about arbitration—why does he not set up an independent court of inquiry and allow the matter to go there? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman wants instead to see the unions go crawling back? While he has kidded or convinced Mr. Jackson, is he aware that that is not the case here, and that he has not convinced this House?

Mr. Carr: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's allegation is the complete opposite of the facts. As to the first part, we had the report of an inquiry recently which spoke very strongly about the failure of the union to keep to its agreement about arbitration. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that within a week, and in view of that, we should not get the same result?

Mr. Orme: A different situation.

Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what he proposes to do to end the deadlock?

Hon. Members: Nothing at all.

Mr. Carr: The two sides have been meeting this morning and the last news I had before I came to the House was that they were still meeting. When that meeting is finished I hope to have a full report of the situation. Then I must judge what to do next. I shall do whatever I can and whatever seems possible to obtain a solution.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is it a fact that the Post Office during the course of this dispute has lost revenue in excess of £13 million which, had it not been so lost, would have enabled the Corporation to concede an additional increase of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. to the Post Office workers? Could he tell the House what scale of loss we must reach before the Minister who is politically responsible for this Department decides to intervene?

Mr. Carr: I am not sure what the lion. Member means in the last part of his Question, because he seems to forget that, not through the action of this Government, but through the action of his own Government, this is now an independent Corporation. My right hon. Friend can no doubt be questioned about his powers in relation to that when appropriate, but it is certainly not a matter for me. As to the first part of the question, this is one of the tragedies in a strike, on both sides. On the one hand, the workers involved feel sufficiently strongly to forgo a lot of earnings because they believe it is so important. Equally, the employer is prepared to do likewise, and that is why strikes are such serious matters and why, thank Goodness, they do not normally arise in any official, serious way on this scale. This happens when both sides take deep positions to which, whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the situation, they hold very strongly

Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only yesterday the Chancellor reaffirmed that the Wilberforce settlement of 10·9 per cent., taken at its best, was not to be regarded as representing a norm? If the Post Office does go beyond 9 per cent., with a general


settlement of say, 10 per cent., would it not be regarded as a norm to be applied across the whole field and make the inflationary process catastrophic?

Mr. Carr: The Wilberforce inquiry stressed very strongly that the electricity workers were a special case because of their productivity. What matters from the overall economic point of view—and this is what causes some of the difficulty and confusion about figures—for the industry is the addition to the wage costs of the industry. The reason why movement is much more possible in the electricity industry at the moment is because of the ongoing introduction of well-founded incentive bonus schemes. It is possible in that industry for people to add substantially to their personal earnings while making much smaller additions to the overall labour costs of the industry. In the Post Office it is not so easy. This was also the basis of the Post Office negotiations at the weekend. While it could not add to the total amount involved in its previous 8 per cent. offer, it said that it would be prepared to seek ways and means of making that more in individual terms if it could be offset through efficiency which would reduce the total additions to labour costs to what was originally offered.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not significant that the Post Office chose last weekend, at the height of the strike, to release to the Press its long-term plans for wrecking the postal services, including the gradual abolition of all postal deliveries to houses and therefore the complete abolition of all postmen? Is that not an indication of its intention not merely of starving them but of trying to frighten the postmen back to work?

Mr. Carr: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is outside my field of responsibility and I am not able to answer in detail. But I understand that they were not specific plans, they were Press speculations—

Mr. William Hamilton: Inspired leaks.

Mr. Carr: The reports on which the speculations were based were inquiries which have been going on for some time and of which all sides were well aware.

Mr. Driberg: A deliberate leak.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that "arbitration" is an ugly word to the trade union movement because of past experience? Will he now delve into the archives and take guidance from the old Ministry of Labour conciliation machinery, which paid dividends to trade unions and employers alike? Is he aware that this would be acceptable to the postmen and would lead to a successful conclusion, which is what the country is asking for?

Mr. Carr: I take note and do not disagree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to the first part, he must ask himself why, if what he says is true, this union signed this new arbitration agreement as recently as last August.

Several Hon Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 5th MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Michael Meacher.
Mr. James Hill.
Mr. Dick Leonard.

BILL PRESENTED

WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY

Mr. Ifor Davies, supported by Mr. Raymond Gower, Mr. George Thomas,
Mr. John Morris, Mr. Michael Roberts, Mr. Alec Jones, Mr. Elystan Morgan,
Mr. Geraint Morgan, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, and Mr. Arthur Probert, presented a Bill to make further provision for contributions by local authorities in Wales (including Monmouthshire) towards the expenses of the Welsh National Opera Company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th March; and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of South Wales Ports, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

1. Consolidated Fund Act, 1971.
2. Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1971.
3. Guardianship of Minors Act, 1971.
4. Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1971.
5. Air Corporations Act, 1971.
6. Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Act, 1971.
7. Local Authorities (Qualification of Members) Act, 1971.
8. Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971.
9. Rolls-Royce (Purchase) Act, 1971.
10. Glasgow Corporation (Finance &amp;c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1971.
11. Paisley Corporation (Cart Navigation) Order Confirmation Act, 1971.
12. Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Orders Confirmation (Melton Mowbray and Sheffield) Act, 1971.
13. Amoco (U.K.) Act, 1971.
14. Falmouth Container Terminal Act, 1971.
15. National Trust Act, 1971.
16. Nottingham Corporation Act, 1971.
17. Berkshire County Council Act, 1971.
18. Bristol Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1971.
19. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1971.
20. Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure, 1971 (No. 1).

ADJOURMENT DEBATE

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your assistance in a matter which has caused me some difficulty. On six occasions over recent weeks, I have applied for an Adjournment debate. Last week, I was successful. I was allotted the Adjournment debate last night. On yesterday's Order Paper there were four separate Bills sponsored by the Government falling to be discussed in the course of the day. I waited throughout the discussion on the first Bill, made certain inquiries about the progress of business, and discovered that we were likely to spend several hours on the other matters. However, the Committee having completed its discussions on the first Bill, the Government, without any warning to me, withdrew without notice the rest of the day's business, whereupon the House adjourned, I not being in my place to open the Adjournment debate. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I hear the bawdy cries from the benches opposite asking where I was.

Sir G. Nabarro: Fast asleep.

Mr. Lyon: I was not fast asleep, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Sir G. Nabarro: What was the hon. Gentleman doing?

Mr. Lyon: I was engaged on an operation which is too delicate to discuss.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not be drawn by questions from the benches opposite. I hope that he will come to his point of order.

Mr. Lyon: The point of order that I wish to put before you is how I can be protected, this situation having arisen. Am I entitled now to apply for a further Adjournment debate on the same subject, which is of considerable interest to my constituents, or am I debarred from doing so immediately? One has noticed in the past in similar circumstances that Mr. Speaker has exercised a certain indulgence towards an hon. Member in my position. In response to the bawdy cries which came from the benches opposite just now, I say only that were I to be denied the possibility of raising this


matter, which is important to my constituents, I should have to take a different attitude to other matters which might come from the Government in the future.

Mr. Tapsell: Further to that point of order. It will be within the recollection of those right hon. and hon. Members who were present during our Committee discussions last night that the actual circumstances were that after a puerile filibuster lasting nearly two hours in the course of which hon. Members on this side pointed out that the Adjournment debate was being put at risk, my right hon Friend the Leader of the House at the request of the Opposition, undertook to withdraw the remaining business provided that these absurd activities were brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I am prepared to deal with the matter without further assistance. I have sympathy for the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). Everyone has been caught out at some time or another. I will consider his point and communicate with him.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 16th February].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 86

INDUSTRIAL ACTION IN SUPPORT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale): I wish to express my opposition to the provisions contained in the Clause. In doing so, I hope that it will be appreciated that Clauses 85, 86 and 87 are inter-related. I shall make every endeavour not to stray into any discussion of the merits of the other two, but I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I find it necessary to refer to them indirectly.
Clause 86 contains provisions which, if accepted by the Committee, can only result in the deep resentment of all trade unionists. The philosophy has long been accepted amongst trade unionists that they have the right to indicate their support to fellow trade unionists who are engaged in a dispute and that, from time to time, they have also the right to translate their support into action. There have been many instances of it recently.
As the Clause is drafted at present, it raises a number of points which I hope that the Solicitor-General will clarify. For example, when the word "contemplation" is used in relation to the furtherance of a dispute, I believe that it refers directly to a sympathetic strike or action of any kind which is taken by one group of work people in support of another. As the Clause is drafted, it would deny to trade unionists the ability to give immediate and spontaneous


support to colleagues who were engaged in any dispute against an employer.
Sympathetic action of this kind takes many forms. I have no doubt that from time to time those excellent trade unionists who sit on the benches opposite will have indicated their own support for their fellow trade unionists engaged in industrial disputes, though I will not quote the instances about which I know.
It is not only important to reserve the right to indicate that support. It is also important to a trade unionist that he should continue to enjoy the right to withdraw his labour on grounds of conscience or loyalty or because he feels that at some later time he may be involved in a similar dispute or even the same dispute.
When trade unionists take sympathetic action of this kind, they are indicating to those involved in the dispute, especially the employers, that they will not co-operate and perform tasks which normally would be carried out by those already involved in the dispute. In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) referred to an example which perhaps I might pursue. He told the Committee of a case involving toilets, and the placing of a time book on a table outside the toilets in which women employees had to register. Suppose that the male workers in that factory decided to support their female colleagues and told the management that the conditions which had been imposed upon the female employees were intolerable. Suppose, further, that they gave notice that they intended to join the dispute at some time in the future. Would that be regarded as the furtherance of the dispute? Would it be a threatening attitude, would it be aiding, would it he abetting? What classification would be attached to such circumstances? I suggest that in all cases any one of those provisions could be applied.
Anyone who refused to act in any way detrimental to his colleagues—silence can often be detrimental to a man's colleagues—could be brought within the ambit of furtherance of a dispute, of aiding, or of abetting. No doubt careful perusal of the language of Clause 86 would bring to light many more legitimate charges which could be brought against a man.
We have knowledge that there are practices which black certain operations, products, supplies and services because of an industrial dispute. If this is done as hitherto when the Bill is passed—God knows, I pray that it will not be passed—then blacking will be an offence.
I shall illustrate a hypothetical case. If the long-distance lorry drivers of the Transport and General Workers Union were asked to take messages and mail from point A to point B and any one driver were to say, "No, this would normally go by post; it has not been the custom and practice hitherto to do this and therefore I will not, because I shall be interfering with an industrial dispute", and the employer insists that the change of practice must be accepted, what would happen? If that driver refused, could he individually be accused of an offence? If any of his colleagues in the same area working for the same employer—perhaps even accompanying drivers on their lorries—took action, what would happen? As the Clause is drafted, no doubt there would be a grave potential danger for such persons in terms of being accused of an offence.
The general unions and the craft unions have different sections. The general unions cover many industrial occupations. If there were any cross-supplies or services which seemed to go over an area in which one section of workers was involved, what would happen if another section of workers belonging to the same union were to take the stance that, under no circumstances, would they make any contribution which was detrimental to their fellow trade unionists? If craftsmen, who take pride in their craft, decide that certain things should not be done, either because of hazard or safety, or other things of which they are justly proud, and demand that certain practices be deplored and discontinued, again no doubt in that setting charges could be made. Many consequential things could overflow into areas of associated and ancillary workers who may respond in this situation by resentment and resistance.
The words
to take or threaten to take
are ambiguous. They can mean almost anything. They can be made to fit any situation not specifically dealt with in the Bill. This provision gives a wide range of application to employers when dealing


with situations which might emerge, but which, by definition, might be blurred in relation to furtherance of a dispute, aiding or abetting.
Attitudes of non-co-operation can be made to appear as threatening. Even a discussion to consider informing an employer that the employees will not co-operate could be interpreted as a threat. If a number of people get together and draft a statement which they have duplicated and circulated to their colleagues, a similar situation would arise.
What does "aiding" mean? What does "abetting" mean? What does "financing" mean? It would appear that by a personal or corporate contribution, by finance or by support, aiding, abetting or financing could be brought into play. Even a meeting called to discuss an industrial dispute and a decission to make a collection to send to some special fund to alleviate hardship could come under aiding, abetting or financing. I have no doubt that with the versatility of those engaged in the legal profession, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, even procuring might eventually appear in the charge—[Interruption.] I make this point quite sincerely. I hope that this will be taken on board and looked at very carefully.
4.15 p.m.
Any direct or indirect support or any observations intended perhaps to be advisory could be caught by Clause 86. Even Members of Parliament who might be asked to attend a strike meeting in relation to the Post Office workers, if they advise that under the circumstances, because of statements made from both sides—[Interruption.] I will develop this further, because I think that I am right.
Clause 86 refers to "aiding" and Clause 85 refers to an industrial dispute, but Clause 86 is not clarified. I think that it has been deliberately framed in that way. In Clause 87 reference is made to "section 86(2)", which can catch within the net, if so desired, those who attend an industrial dispute who are not members of the union or are not involved in the industry or trade. In certain circumstances, it could be said that they contributed both financially and in terms of advice. Members of Parliament could be placed in that situation. If the Bill

were applicable now, no doubt I could be held to have been in contempt of it last Monday when I attended a meeting of the Post Office workers.
Many points emerge under these headings. If I were to write for any trade union journal—at the moment I am the Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the Transport and General Workers Union—or to make public comment which was printed and circulated in the union journal—after listening to some of the exchanges today, I might be tempted to make a categoric statement and give advice to the postmen to take a certain course of action—I should be in contravention of Clause 86.
The Bill is stifling freedom. It is depriving trade unionists of the one asset which they prize above all others—namely, that in certain circumstances and according to the needs of the situation they can go to the aid of their colleagues. Refusal to act under such circumstances might bring a wealth of attribution at some later date, particularly if they are members of the same trade union.
I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General in his legal capacity from time to time would feel obliged, though not necessarily in absolute agreement, to render support, oral or in any other form, to some of his colleagues in the legal profession. It is not so long ago that I read criticism of one of my right hon. and learned Friends in relation to a case before a court. I noticed that a right hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side of the Chamber immediately sprang to the defence of his professional colleagues and said that everything that was done was perfectly and rightly done. But under the Clause, if any trade unionists were to so print and proclaim, there is no doubt that there could be charges. There would not always be these charges, but it would leave the opportunity for them to be made. That would be to the detriment of industrial relations and, at the end of the day, we would not contribute one whit to understanding but would build up a resentment from which there would be no escape at any time.
The phrase "short of a strike" can mean anything. Either one comes under the category of subsection 2(a), or the rest of it comes under subsection 2(b). This is an all-embracing Bill, trying to create for the first time an offence for


anybody acting in any way, or purporting to act in any way, in support of any colleague in any situation of industrial dispute. It would go further than a denial of freedom. It would make virtual prisoners of trade unionists in certain industrial circumstances. Again, it will not always happen, but the opportunity will be there. The Clause tries to take away the right of free assembly, freedom of action and freedom of objective support by whatever means are used, by language, literature, radio, television or other media.
Concerted action under Clause 86(2)(b) can be a problem. If I believed that goods, services or supplies from an industry in which there is an industrial dispute should not be purchased or supported by myself, my friends, my relatives, or my colleagues in the House, and I were to join with them and plan a campaign in which we would indicate our resistance to the purchase of such goods or services, we should be in contravention of the Clause.
I am not worried that an answer could be given today that what I have suggested could happen would be far from the realities. I am still concerned that the Bill will be the basis for case law, which has a peculiar way of turning in opposite directions. I call in aid the Gaming Act, 1963, to support that proposition. No one on either side of the Committee would support some of the case law which flows from that.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) referred yesterday to the Liverpool dock situation last year and the year before. I wish to correct some misimpressions and misunderstandings which might have flowed from what he said. The port employers and the National Port Employers Association met the trade unions concerned. After intensive discussions, the port employers suggested that their offer was a reasonable basis on which recommendations could be made. The leadership of the negotiating team accepted that it was an appropriate time to convey that offer to those working in the dock system. They did not come to an agreement. They said, "All right, we will take the offer back". They did so.
Once the operatives in the dock system heard the recommendations, they rejected them. When I say "they", they are the

trade union. It is not a leader or a single person. Each member is the trade union and corporately he forms it. They said to their servant, the leader who represented them, "This offer is not good enough. Please go back and tell the Employers Association that we reject it." Strange to relate, when that was done a better offer was immediately made and was accepted within 24 hours. But a long time had elapsed with consultations, taking the offer back to the men and with public meetings so that the recommendation could be explained in detail. The decision was from the members. I hope that we can discount that situation as enumerated by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
Clauses 86, 85 and 87 are intended for one purpose only. There are many aspects of that purpose. I have briefly indicated a few. They are meant to destroy the solidarity and unity of the trade unions. They are meant to divide and to rule. Anyone who says different has not read Clause 86.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton): When I entered the House of Commons I did not expect to contribute to a debate on industrial relations. But for two years I was responsible for probably one of the largest industries run by this or any Government—the Royal Dockyards. Week by week I would chair meetings of the Whitley Council, and discuss industrial problems in one of the better environments for discussing them which exist in this country. Much criticised at times, the Whitley system still has a genuine method of consultation.
We are discussing a fundamental principle, for lines 4 and 5 of the Clause go right to the root of much that we on this side of the Committee find abhorrent in this legislation. If one went outside the House of Commons, one would find on a superficial questioning that quite a number of people would say that we should ban sympathy strikes. I do not claim that sympathy strikes are very popular. But those people do not face up to the logic of the principle which is under attack, which is the principle of collectivism, the principle of people being able to join together freely to exert pressure for their rights.
We have seen that principle attacked through the closed shop. We have seen it now attacked in some firms, as I hope


I shall be able to illustrate. The Government are attacking the only way in which some trade unionists can protest effectively.
The biggest Royal Dockyard is in my constituency, and there are three other major dockyards. It is not clear to me whether, if, which I hope will not arise, strike action was taken in Devonport Dockyard, under the Clause anybody in the three other dockyards would be prohibited from taking any other action.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth): In this hypothetical case, is it an official or an unofficial strike?

Dr. Owen: That does not make any difference. The hon. Gentleman should know that it makes no difference. If we were dealing with sympathy action, unofficial strikes, at least a case could be made. Whether I agree with that or not I do not intend to go into. But certainly the most serious thing is that this is a threat of an official strike. If the dockyards went on strike, it would probably be an official strike. With this industry I had two pressures on me. One was when I was the employer negotiating with the unions, on productivity deals and union pay rates; and the other was an input from my constituents who were most affected.
4.30 p.m.
In those circumstances, if the right to take sympathetic action in Rosyth, Portsmouth and Chatham is removed, the workload could be rearranged and strikes could be broken simply by sending ships which needed repair to a different area. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will give us a clear answer as to whether workers are affected if a strike is taking place in the same industry but in a different part of the country. The logic would seem to be that there cannot be sympathy strikes within the same industry and under the same employer.
The next case to which I want to draw attention is the strike which has been taking place at the Fine Tubes factory in my constituency. This must be one of the longest strikes on record in Britain. I hope that I can illustrate why in this instance the refusal to allow sympathy action could be devastating to the power of the unions negotiating in this circumstance. I shall not go too deeply into

the merits of the strike, but the Committee should know the sequence of events.
One of the problems in the strike is that we have not been able to get the two sides to discuss at all. The management of Fine Tubes has resolutely refused to discuss the situation with the strikers. Few people will deny that this is probably never defensible. There are always two sides to any dispute and it is important that management should listen to the other side.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North): What about the D.E.P.?

Dr. Owen: I will come to the role of the D.E.P. in this matter, because there are certain major illogicalities about the Department's position.
The situation goes back to 9th December, 1969, when negotiations started in the Fine Tubes factory for a substantial pay rise. These were concluded—I think I had better say "terminated"—on 3rd June in a total failure. I give credit to the management, but that it fulfilled the York agreement, but this was common at that time throughout the country. Many manufacturers, to retain any degree of parity, were going well above that Agreement; and I do not think that it was ever disputed that the unions had a formidable case at that time for a greater rise than was offered.
Anyhow, on 15th June, 1970, in the midst of the election, 172 men and women withdrew their labour at 2.30 p.m. Soon after this the strike was made official by both the A.E.F. and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
Next in the sequence of events an ultimatum was sent to the 172 strikers on 30th June, 1970 to return to work the next day or be sacked. They did not return to work; and in consequence they were sacked. The Department of Employment and Productivity has taken the view that these people were legally sacked—that the employers acted properly thereafter in that they paid sickness and holiday pay; so these people were considered to be sacked.
Then we came to the question whether in this case the Department of Employment and Productivity was to offer the facilities of the Department to fill the gap left by the 172 people who had been sacked. This is a very serious issue. The


Department has used its facilities to fill these vacancies.

The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be so good as to show me exactly how he is relating this to the Clause and keep on relating it to the Clause as he develops his argument?

Dr. Owen: My case is that at present throughout the country people are involved in sympathy action with the Fine Tube strikers and this is probably the most classic case of factory workers being involved in sympathy action with their fellow trade unionists up and down the country. In fairness to the Committee I thought that I should give the background before dealing with what sympathy action has been taken, how all this affects the Department of Employment and Productivity, and how this affects crucially the unions' bargaining position if the power to take sympathy strikes is withdrawn.
With respect to you, Sir Robert, I think that this is relevant to the whole question. There is a terrible tendency to talk in generalities. We are dealing with a detailed situation in a small factory where an employer has sacked people, where people are on strike, and where sympathy action is being taken by their fellow workers throughout the country. If the Bill becomes law in the summer, that strike will be seriously affected.

The Chairman: I appreciated all that. At the same time the hon. Gentleman must relate what he says to the terms of the Clause, otherwise we shall be having a broad debate and lose sight of the Clause altogether.

Dr. Owen: I respect your Ruling, Sir Robert, and I will do my best to comply with it.
There having been this sequence of events, the Fine Tube strikers were faced with the problem that they could exert influence only away from Plymouth. As the Department of Employment and Productivity had used its facilities and as Plymouth is an area where there is relatively high unemployment, it was not difficult to fill the vacancies; so the factory went on to production. Yet the men went on strike. As this was an official strike, they used their facilities—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I cannot call this case to mind, because obviously there are many strikes. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what the strike was about?

Dr. Owen: I have tried to tell the Committee about that, and it raises the point that the Chair has raised. It is important to give the facts. The strike is about wages. I have been in fairly continual consultation with the Minister of State, Department of Employment. I am one of the few people who can speak to both unions and management, and I have tried not to exacerbate the position. I have tried to get them round the consultation table. The hon. Gentleman will find that his colleague at the Department knows the facts of the situation. I do not think that there is any dispute—I will gladly withdraw what I have said if it is found that I am wrong—about the fact that the Department has used its facilities. It sent inspectors in to find whether there had been any contravention of the law. It used its facilities. In consequence, the factory is producing.
The trade unionists felt that the only way in which they could genuinely push their claim in the circumstances was to black work coming from the Fine Tubes Factory. It is a tribute to the trade union movement that it has been successful in various parts of the country in ensuring that this very delicate tubing did not go out of the factory and was not accepted in other areas. There is argument as to the effectiveness of the blacking action, but it took place and is continuing to take place. Further, those who are still on strike maintain that it is vital in their interests.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Will the hon. Gentleman make clear how this can arise on the Clause? He has just told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the strike was about wages and was, therefore, a perfectly ordinary, normal, fair subject of strike action. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way seeks to restrain the calling of a strike for that purpose. So the original strike is not itself unfair. I am trying to find out how any strikes called in support of it are said to be caught by the Clause.

Dr. Owen: The Clause contains these words:
in doing so is to aid and abet another person in doing".
The key to this Clause—it goes on into Clause 87—is a ban on sympathetic action.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry): The hon. Gentleman does not read on far enough. Later the Clause says that the original person must have been doing something which was "an unfair industrial practice". The original breach from which this arose must have been an unfair industrial practice.

Dr. Owen: If this is the interpretation of the Clause, some of our complaints can go.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Owen: Let us listen to the argument first. If I understand the argument, the hon. Gentleman argues that sympathetic action is banned only if the original strike was unfair. So sympathetic action can be taken if a strike is judged not to be unfair. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be straightforward about this. In June, when the Bill becomes law, if the workers at Fine Tubes are still taking strike action, and sympathetic strike action is continuing, with the blacking of work coming out of Fine Tubes, that will not be affected by what I have understood the Bill to mean as regards sympathetic action. Is that right?

The Solicitor-General: It is most important that this point should be clearly understood. Clause 86 is about industrial action in support of an unfair industrial practice. If the primary strike, to put it in that way, in other words, the Fine Tubes strike, is a fair matter and not one which is in any way restrained or curtailed by the Bill, secondary or sympathetic strike action in support of that fair primary dispute is not in any way restricted.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn): Could the hon. and learned Gentleman help a laywoman on this? It is an immensely complicated Bill. Under Clause 86, is it an unfair industrial practice to aid and abet sympathetic action which is itself an unfair industrial practice?

The Solicitor-General: I am intervening to try to help the Committee on the scope of this Clause. If dockyards help one another by switching work from one yard to another, they are all either involved in the same primary dispute under Clause 87 or they are taking supporting action under Clause 87 so that strikes against such work-switched dockyards would also not be unfair under Clause 87. But in the context of Clause 86, if the primary strike is fair, to use borrowed strength in support of sympathetic action remains equally fair.

Dr. Owen: This elucidation helps me so long as the Solicitor-General will not take a different position on Clause 87. However, I remain anxious, because of our difficulty in having to select a specific Clause for debate. I felt that the general principle of banning sympathetic action outright was in issue on Clause 86. I shall listen to the debate with interest, but from the words of the SolicitorGeneral—this is an important principle for the strikers to whom I have referred, and I am glad to have brought it out under Clause 86—I seem to understand that, if their strike is not considered to be an unfair strike, that is, it is considered to be a fair practice, and it is an official strike, if they can persuade their fellow trade unionists to take sympathetic action that will not be banned under either Clause 86 or Clause 87.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West): Could I intervene on exactly this point? Under Clause 87(1)(a) and (b) it will be possible for people who have been urged to break a contract to be sued—for the strikers to be sued—for any action which has been taken, and the words "unfair industrial practice" are dropped from Clause 87 whereas they appear in Clause 86.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That had been my understanding of Clauses 86 and 87, but it now seems that the Solicitor-General is giving a different interpretation. I am sure that he wishes to help the Committee, and I think that most of us on this side would welcome his new interpretation. If it is not enough, it is certainly a chink in the armour. Perhaps he would kindly give an assurance that Clauses 86 and 87 run together.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that I shall be thought to be doing my best to help the Committee in interpreting the Clauses, and I want there to be no misunderstanding about this. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has raised a question about Clause 87. Clause 87 imposes a specific narrow restriction on secondary strike action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It can be debated separately from Clause 86. Clause 87 is directed at the inducing of strike action intended to procure breach of specific commercial contracts, other than contracts of employment, if these contracts are being broken by people who are innocent of and extraneous to the original dispute.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Orme: Yes, secondary action.

The Solicitor-General: Secondary action, but only if it is taken against someone who is not a party to the original dispute, who is innocent of it, and who has taken no action to support the primary employer. The dockyard point, therefore, is covered, for two reasons, because every dockyard, if it takes switched work, is involved in supporting action, quite apart from the fact that it may well be a party under the same management.
In Clause 86, however, which is what the Committee is now debating, the intention is limited to supporting secondary sympathetic strikes which are in support of action which is itself unfair. It is no wider than that.

Dr. Owen: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is helping me somewhat on the dockyard question, but I am still uncertain about Fine Tubes. I see a different issue of principle here. One recognises that the Atomic Energy Authority, one of the factories concerned with blacked work, and parts of the aircraft industry at Bristol similarly affected, are not themselves deeply involved, but the workers there are involved because they are members of the A.E.F. and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
If those workers freely and democratically—the Solicitor-General may feel it necessary to impose a procedure to satisfy himself that the decision is taken freely and democratically—take sympathetic action on the basis of collectivism, on the

basis of union solidarity, what will the position be?
When the situation was considered by the Donovan Commission, it referred to the judgment of Lord Herschell in 1898 to the effect that the right of anyone to pursue his trade or employment without "molestation" or "obstruction" is a branch of the wider right of anyone to do any lawful act he chooses without molestation or obstruction, and he could not, therefore, entertain the proposition that an act not otherwise wrongful becomes so if it interferes with another's trade or employment.
As I understand lines 4 and 5 of Clause 86, it is in direct contravention of Lord Herschell's judgment in 1898. The Solicitor-General implied that the limitations which he puts on sympathetic action in Clause 87 are narrow and specific. We shall listen with interest. I realise, Sir Robert, that you would not wish us to go into Clause 87 now, although I feel that this puts us in some difficulty because of its relationship with Clause 86.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham): With reference to the Fine Tubes question and not other matters, it seems to me that the Solicitor-General is saying that there is a narrow contradiction between the two Clauses. By his comment, he acknowledges that there is a contradiction there on this narrow point. I do not agree—I imagine that my hon. Friends will take the same view and I consider that there is a much wider contradiction, but at the moment we have the admission from the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a narrow contradiction between the two Clauses.

Dr. Owen: What concerns me is the way these things work out on the ground, how they work in Fine Tubes, for example. There is a tendency for us here to legislate on principle and not to follow the logic down to how people are affected on the ground. I take again the case of Fine Tubes. A man has been on strike. A man has been encouraged to help by sympathetic action. Ever since the strike took place, there has been a test case about whether these workers, because they were sacked, were eligible for unemployment benefit. This has been consistently refused. It has been refused even to a man in my constituency who has given up strike pay voluntarily and


taken the opportunity to undergo an electrical course. He has been refused unemployment benefit, and, with all the commitments which he has, he now has to bring up a family on £9·05 a week. Again, the Department of Employment and Productivity has intervened decisively on the side of the employer, as the Government now threaten to do in banning sympathetic action.
I return to the general principle. It is small factories that are most affected by any ban on sympathetic action. The labour force can be made up that much more easily, as has been done in Fine Tubes. If a factory has done that and is getting its work out, the only influence the unions can bring to bear on the management is sympathetic action at the outlet.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In fairness to the Department of Employment, I should point out that it must interpret the law as it is now.

Dr. Owen: If the Department is interpreting the law in the narrow sense of saying that men are on strike and therefore cannot have unemployment benefit, it cannot have it both ways, and it should not give the facilities of the Department to the management to obtain labour. What I am upset about is the illogicality of the application of the existing law. The Department is putting people involved in a serious strike that has gone on since June in the position of being threatened by not having the ability to take sympathetic action. Yet as I understand it the Solicitor-General now says that it is all right for them to take sympathetic action in the circumstances.

Mr. McNamara: I listened with great interest to what the Solicitor-General said. But the important thing in the Clause is the phrase
anything which by virtue of this Act is an unfair industrial practice".
It then goes on to subsection (2). In Clause 87 we have the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) raised, which drags the Clause into Clause 86. The narrow point that the Solicitor-General made is not covered because Clause 87 covers Clause 86 precisely.

Dr. Owen: That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. I realise that this poses a difficulty for the Chair, but we cannot debate the principle embraced in Clause 86 without being cognisant of the small print which comes afterwards, and which so often in the Bill is the most important part.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Surely there is a clear distinction between the two Clauses. I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Clause 86 is based on a strike which is originally fair, which is not an unfair industrial practice. That is not the case with Clause 87.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order——

The Chairman: I think that I can dispose of the matter to everyone's satisfaction right away. Passing references to Clause 87 are not only in order but seem to me to be essential if we are to understand what we are talking about. But let us not go into detail on Clause 87.

Dr. Owen: This helps the Committee, Sir Robert. It is clear from what the Solicitor-General said that he should now clarify his position in relation to my point, embracing Clause 87 as well as Clause 86. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to help the Committee.
We are concerned with a situation that deeply affects many men. For 90 people to have maintained a strike since June on very limited pay in a time of increasing prices shows that they feel that they have right on their side. I know that there are two interpretations of the strike, and they are very worried about the effect the Clause might have if they maintain their position and their solidarity after this Measure is passed. I hope that the Solicitor-General will intervene on the interpretation he has now given. I think that most hon. Members feel that it is this in the circumstances I have outlined. The Department still considers it to be a strike, and will not pay unemployment benefit, and does not accept that the workers were sacked at the end of June or early in July. The interpretation is that under the Bill there is nothing to stop sympathetic action continuing to help this isolated case, which was basically a fair strike.


I have raised other points, but not to go into them in detail, The Department must consider its position with great seriousness. I have written to it and have had conversations with people in it. They seem to be taking sides in the dispute somewhat unfairly.
We return to the principle. If the Solicitor-General interprets Clause 87 as narrowly as he seemed to do, then, though I still do not like it, the position is clearly much improved. I do not think that anyone would deny that. But we are very suspicious that that will not he the case. After all, one of the problems about the Bill is that it will be interpreted by lawyers. What people in the country do not realise is that we are making law, not just stating vague principles. It is the actual wording of Clauses 86 and 87 that will affect people's attitudes throughout the country.
Much has been said by hon. Members opposite about their aim to strengthen trade unions. They say that the Bill is not an attack on trade unions, that it is to be an attack on bad management as much as on other aspects. But the root of the Bill is the continued attack on the principle of collectivism. I urge the Secretary of State in particular to look at-this. He has managed a large industy and knows the problems. Some of us on this side have had the privilege of managing large industries. We know that over the years immense benefits have come from strong trade unions, from individuals grouping together to take collective action.
I do not want to discuss the closed shop principle again, but the time when I was most involved with this was when I was negotiating probably the largest productivity deal ever negotiated by a Government Department, with industrial workers in the dockyards. The whole question came up, and I am glad to say that the managers of all the dockyards saw the benefit of a closed shop and exerted as much pressure as they felt they could for it. I was prepared to concede that no newcomer to the dockyard should be allowed who was not prepared to join a union. The question of sympathetic action is just as much a fundamental principle. There are cases where to deprive a union of the ability to take sympathetic action, particularly

cases such as I have described of small factories in areas of high unemployment, which can easily fill up with blackleg labour, means a major emasculation of trade union powers, it is an emasculation which hits again at the principle of people combining.
The Solicitor-General has given a very interesting interpretation. He said that it is a narrow interpretation and implied that in the circumstances I have outlined neither Clause 87 nor Clause 86 would stop sympathetic action taking place. If that is not the case, he should clarify the situation. We are hopeful that that is a concession that we shall obtain from the Government. But the Government are in danger of once again encroaching on a very important principle on which trade unionism is based just as much as management is. Management acts collectively, and there has been value in that. We would not despise it. But this principle needs a great deal of clarification, and we hope that the Committee will be given it in Clause 87.

[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone): I speak in support of the Amendment. I do not believe—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will forgive me—that there has been any concession whatever in the intervention of the Solicitor-General. I take the view that we are debating Clause 86 and that we should stick to it and then criticise the Government on Clause 87 when we get to that. Clause 86 is bad enough, in my judgment, and I want to concentrate on that.
It is true, in my submission, that the Post Office strike would have nothing to do with Clause 86. It does not have to be brought into this discussion. What Clause 86 is governed by—and I think this should be common ground in the Committee—is the words,
… anything which by virtue of this Act is an unfair industrial practice on the part of that other person.
That is the governing phrase. It means that action which anyone, either a union or a group of work people, is aiding or abetting or showing sympathy towards in the first place must have been an unfair industrial practice under the Bill.


That much, I believe, ought to be common ground. Therefore, it rules out anything under Clause 86. I am not looking forward to other Clauses or discussing any principles. I am addressing myself entirely to the way in which Clause 86 is drafted. We therefore have to exclude from our minds at this moment of argument anything that is not in its origin an unfair industrial practice.
The Bill is so full of what are called "unfair industrial practices" that this is not the narrow point which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to claim it to be, aided and abetted by some hon. Members opposite who are equally mistaken. It is a very wide and dangerous point which should be firmly opposed by this side of the Committee. Again, we must not start chasing hares as to what might happen if people who are not working in industry make speeches anyway.
What this provision is meant to hit is the most civilising influence that the trade union movement has had in British history—solidarity and sympathy for fellow workers. That is what the provision is meant to hit, and to hit fundamentally and most unfairly. There is not an organisation in the country, or anywhere else, that has done more to civilise the behaviour of people to people than the British trade union movement. It created the principle of solidarity which has allowed people when they have felt lonely and perhaps isolated, or with defeat staring them in the face, to feel that there were fellow workers who would show solidarity with them.
No false distinction between unofficial and official disputes is involved here at all. The way the Bill is drawn means that both official and unofficial action can constitute an unfair industrial practice. The distinction is between unfair industrial practices and other industrial practices. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) agrees with me, he must know what he is agreeing with. It is a very wide principle. A whole trade union may be held as acting against the law if it is acting in aid and sympathy with what was originally regarded as an unfair industrial practice. That is the real distinction.
Let us examine the position in real life. Let us take an example, which I knew about personally. Supposing a manager has been brought into a department and for several months has been conducting himself in a way in which he should not conduct himself. I take this example from the steel industry, with which I am very familiar, and no doubt in other industries there are similar examples. After feeling has built up, something cracks. As a result, the manager turns to two workpeople and says, "You two go home. I will not have you on this shift." This is said at 2.30 a.m. What are the men in that shift to do? Very often, the only possible reaction is to say, "In our opinion, you have no right to do this, and if these two men go, we go as well." This is very often the only kind of industrial self-defence that a group of work people are in a position to undertake in order to be effective at the time that it is most important that it should be effective, yet under the Bill it will be called an unfair industrial practice.
Very often the dispute is put right because the much-maligned shop stewards get together in the morning, have a discussion with the senior manager, and the thing is cleared up and the two men come back to work. But if, for some reason, the thing is not cleared up quickly, it may be a question of another department coming out which was not involved in the original dispute, which the Government want the courts to interpret as an unfair industrial practice in origin. Perhaps there is a factory next door where the work people say, "We will not have this. If we allow this sort of action by a manager, such high-handed attitudes may spread. We are not going to make distinctions. The Government have declared, unjustly and unjustifiably, that this is an unfair industrial practice, but we shall go to the aid of the people next door. We will collect money and aid and support them on our shop floor."
All this would fall under the trap of Clause 86. That is why it has very wide implications. The Government are taking away fundamental rights of the people by this Clause, as they are doing throughout the Bill. They must not be allowed to ride off by saying, "This is only very narrow Clause. If the conflict in its


origin was not an unfair industrial practice, sympathetic action does not fall under this Clause", as though that makes it unimportant. One can see the clever way in which the lawyers advising the Government are trying to winkle in vast changes in the rights of British working people under the pretence that these are only very narrow changes. We should stick strictly to this question of the invasion of the rights of the working people.
Another point makes the Clause wider still in its application. At present we have no distinctions between registered and unregistered unions. The Government are trying to introduce a very great difficulty for a union which is not registered once the Bill becomes law. That has implications that would still further widen the application of Clause 86, which is designed to frighten people into registration. I use the term advisedly and very rarely, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I say now that this is the beginning of an approach to the corporate State. This is deliberate intimidation of unions which are not prepared to register, as they now have the perfect right not to do. This is something that the Government are trying to slip in without admitting to it.
Under the provisions of the Bill, an unregistered trade union would be engaging in an unfair industrial practice that would be regarded as a perfectly fair industrial practice if it were engaged upon by a registered trade union. That makes the Clause wider still. It does not mean that all the actions of an unregistered trade union would fall under this provision—of course not. That is the additional danger. The main danger remains the original one that I have pointed out—that it is not possible or desirable that a group of workpeople should be prevented from using immediately their only way of industrial self-defence.
The Solicitor-General showed his ignorant approach to industrial relations and industrial life when he spoke yesterday. These things do not happen at the drop of a hat, as he suggested; they do not happen because someone suddenly gets in a rage. They happen because something has been building up. In the factory I quoted as an example, the situation had been building up over a period of six months. There comes a situation

when what has been a bad attitude by the management flashes into action against certain workpeople. That is the point where solidarity has to assert itself, as anyone with experience in industry knows. It is at that point that sympathetic action—taken when it is most needed—comes under this Clause. I hope that we shall oppose Clause 86 and support the Amendment.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that this was the first occasion on which he had spoken during this Committee stage. It is unfortunate that he has not previously contributed out of his considerable experience, but I hope that we shall hear more from him. When the Bill becomes law, it will be clear whether the two cases which he cited were fair or unfair industrial practices, and it will therefore be clear whether Clause 86 would apply to sympathetic action in connection with them.
I am surprised to find myself in some agreement with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson); we rarely agree. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) spoke of action which he might have taken which was seen to be aiding and abetting the Post Office strike. Leaving aside whether arbitration should have been used, let us assume that under the Bill it would be an entirely fair industrial practice and an official strike; any aiding and abetting which the hon. Gentleman mentioned would then not be subject to any penalty under Clause 86.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and I are members of the same trade union. As a result of the Post Office strike, a person had a contract to deliver mail, goods or parcels. The members of my union employed by the firm say that it is a breach of an industrial dispute. Clause 86 in line 36 uses the words
by virtue of this Act".
Clause 87 states what are the other unfair industrial practices covered by the Bill, one being to induce a person to break a contract, not being a contract of employment—otherwise, a commercial contract. My union will not allow this man to deliver mail because that would be breaking a strike which we support and for which we have sympathy, and we there-


fore say that we are taking sympathetic action, but it is an unfair industrial act by virtue of what is said in Clause 86. Now—

The Temporary Chairman: An intervention must be an intervention, not a speech. I recognised the need for a technical description, which is why I forbore to interrupt earlier, but the hon. Gentleman must not take it too far.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to you, Mr. Jennings. This would be an unfair industrial practice under Clause 86. This is something which my union has frequently discussed.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has forestalled one of my questions to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I should like clarification as to whether sympathetic action in support of unfair sympathetic action would itself be unfair. For the moment, I am reading Clause 86 as though the action which is to be considered unfair would follow the original unfair action; but I should welcome an explanation from my hon. and learned Friend.
The hon. Member for Penistone said with a great weight of emphasis that the governing words in the Clause were "unfair industrial practice". He went on to say that he was not happy about the list of unfair industrial practices in the Bill. He is entitled to say that; but Clause 86 simply says that if the Government and, when the Bill becomes law, the country do not accept unfair industrial practices as such we cannot accept the proliferation of strike action in support of unfair industrial practices which we cannot support.
It is a simple argument and one which with Clause 86 as it stands, apart from my query about sympathetic action, is unarguable in the context of the whole Bill and the acceptance of the list of unfair industrial practices.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is not only arguable but very greatly arguable. Even if the Government intend to have a series of novel definitions, bitterly opposed by the trade union movement, of what will in future constitute unfair industrial practices, it is one thing to discourage people from doing what the Government would regard as an unfair industrial practice, but quite another to attack the solidarity of

working people when, as a matter of the judgment of their own conscience, working people take sympathetic action in support of those already engaged in a struggle.

Mr. Butler: The Bill is meant to prevent or reduce unofficial action which in some circumstances might call for sympathetic action. There is no undermining of trade union solidarity where there is a fair industrial practice; that is to say, a fair, constitutional strike. I can see no objection to Clause 86 as it stands, and I therefore support it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson (Tottenham): The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) was adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) when he said that the Bill deprived people of judgment, and this is what this part of the Bill is about. I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend, except for his opening remarks. I remind him that an academic university lecturer works in a sheltered occupation, so sheltered and privileged that it is not for him to remind others that they have not worked in industry and to say that they are, therefore, not qualified to comment on Bills of this kind.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have not done that.

Mr. Atkinson: You did in your opening remarks.

The Temporary Chairman: Not in mine.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said about Fine Tubes. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton was absolutely right, and the fact that he is a doctor does not invalidate his argument; if anything, it strengthens it.

Mr. John Mendelson: I do not know where my hon. Friend has been in the last ten minutes, but I did not mention the Fine Tubes case and I did not refer to any of the things which he has been mentioning. He must have been dreaming.

Mr. Atkinson: I look forward to reading my hon. Friend's opening remarks in HANSARD. Apart from that, I entirely agree with what he said. His interpretation was absolutely right.


I remind the hon. Member for Bosworth of the purpose of the Bill and especially these two Clauses, which, as he rightly said, is to ban sympathetic action. That is the way in which the Bill is designed and that is the purpose of the Government.

Mr. Butler: I apologise for breaking into the hon. Gentleman's remarks so early and before he has had a chance to develop his argument, but I did not refer to sympathetic action taken in respect of fair industrial practices. I hope that we shall soon move on to the next Clause, because that deals with the more important matter. I confined myself to Clause 86.

Mr. Atkinson: That is the point I was about to come to. This marks the difference in our approaches to the Bill and its purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone forcefully pointed out that sympathetic action is to be outlawed by the Bill very largely depending on one's interpretation on what is fair and unfair.
So far as I am concerned with my class bias—or my objectivity perhaps—my interpretation of most industrial disputes is that they are always fair. In that sense, it would not be straining my own dialectics to say that the working class is always right and can never be wrong. Having asserted that, I start out on my analysis of this legislation.
The question of what is fair and what is unfair gives us an understanding of what the Bill is about. I totally reject—and I am one of many who take this view on this side of the Committee—the Government's understanding of fair and unfair industrial practices. We certainly challenge the interpretation of hon. Members opposite. We would say that almost all disputes, unofficial or official, are honourable occasions, and we are proud of the part played by shop stewards in organising workers and fighting for better standards for people in industry.
We cannot spell it out any clearer than that what divides us in this matter of deciding what is fair and unfair. The longer discussion goes on in this Committee the more some of us will tend to start apologising for what hon. Members opposite regard as an unfair practice. To us it is nothing of the kind. We must get out of this habit before it catches on. We should recognise that in our language

and in terms of our purpose every dispute is a fair one.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): It represents freedom.

Mr. Atkinson: Of course it does. We should not take a semi-apologetic attitude on these matters.
The Government's view appears to be that employers have a right to combine but trade unions have not. Employers have a right to combine together to overcome disruption which may arise as a result of an industrial quarrel, but the Bill spells out that trade unions have no such a right to combine to further that quarrel in safeguarding their own interests. Again, there is a class difference in approaching the problems of industry. We are arguing that the trade unions have every right to take this sort of combined action to represent their own interests.
If I may come to the Fine Tubes argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned that a district levy was being applied in his own district to help members who had suffered loss of wages. This was a voluntary effort by members of the trade unions concerned, and the levy went to a central fund. It would appear that under Clauses 86 and 87 such a levy would not be possible. This is one of our major objections to these Clauses since it will create difficulties for trade unionists in raising funds by levy to help fellow trade unionists. This is a very real problem. I should be interested to hear the Solicitor-General's views about the imposition of levies or the taking of collective action in such circumstances.
Are the Government saying that in terms of a "fair"—to use the Government's language—dispute an injunction is not permissible? I do not know whether the Solicitor-General is familiar with the recent Johnson Matthey case, which will undoubtedly go down in trade union history, or indeed anti-trade union history. Is it feasible that such a case will arise in future? It involved an employer who sought an injunction and claimed compensation from a trade union which took sympathetic action. No doubt such a situation would depend on the interpretation of a fair or unfair industrial dispute and its origins. We shall oppose these two Clauses if only because of the difficulties they will create for trade


unions in raising funds to help those who are in dispute.
The second point involves the problems which arise when a transfer of work takes place within the walls of a particular factory. When there is a dispute in one department of a factory, managements seek to overcome the subsequent loss of production by shifting the work to another department in the same factory. This happens regularly in many large factories. Trade unionists in the department in which the dispute has occurred go to workers in the other department and try to persuade them not to carry out any work on that transferred job within the same factory. This is not a narrow point on fair and unfair practices but a major problem which confronts a trade union organisation in a factory and within the same works committee. I should have thought that that sort of case was parallel to the Fine Tubes situation, although within the walls of the same factory.
My reading of Clause 87 leads me to believe that it is the Government's intention—and presumably this will be the court's interpretation at a future date—that all sympathetic action, or "blacking of work", as we know it today, will be outlawed in general, except in narrow circumstances where the question of fairness is clearly defined. If there is any ambiguity about the origin of a dispute, the court no doubt will take the view that sympathetic action is to be outlawed. This again is one of our fundamental objections to this Clause.
I believe that once the Bill becomes law these two Clauses will be the first to be used, and that it is in respect of these provisions that the first trade union casualties will come.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not talking about two Clauses. We are talking about one Clause, with passing reference being allowed to Clause 87.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: The emphasis of my remarks stems from Clause 86 and not from Clause 87. Therefore, any reference to Clause 87 is a passing reference. My remarks are centred on Clause 86.
We are discussing a part of the Bill which will cause the first casualties in the trade union movement if it becomes

law. The first casualties will be those charged with offences under the Clause, and we must be very careful about what we do. We must ensure that the Government thoroughly understand what they are doing and what is likely to result from the law as it will become. Presumably the Government are anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book before 18th March, when the T.U.C. is being recalled. I take it that they have discussed the timetable in the light of that fact.

Mr. Orme: It will be impossible to get the Bill on the Statute Book by then because of the Lords.

Mr. Atkinson: It will not be impossible. When the imposition of the guillotine was first discussed, presumably the Government's intention was to get the Bill through by the time the T.U.C. was recalled. There are precedents. We dealt with the Bill on Rolls-Royce in a day. There is no doubt that we can get through this Bill by 18th March. Assuming that the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are right in their assessment of the time that it will take to put before the House a code of conduct and other matters in the next three or four months, there will be a period in October and November when we shall run into trouble with these two Clauses.
There are areas in industry in which there will be need to renew contracts and existing arrangements about October and November. I therefore predict that the two Clauses will bring in their wake a trail of casualties—the first people to suffer as a result of this iniquitous legislation.

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. I seek your help and guidance, Mr. Jennings. In initiating the discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I did not make much reference to Clause 85 or Clause 87, but it is within my knowledge that my colleagues will wish to do so. I draw your attention, Mr. Jennings, to line 4 of Clause 87, which refers to Clause 86(2) and sets out paragraphs (a) and (b) dealing with the interpretation and implementation of Clause 87. Therefore, the Clauses cannot be separated.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was present when the Chairman of Ways and Means gave a Ruling


on this matter. The hon. Gentleman must abide by that Ruling, as I intend to do. The Chairman ruled that, while Clause 86 was the Clause under discussion, passing references could be made to Clause 87 because it was in part bound up with Clause 86. I have allowed passing references to Clause 87. But the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are due to debate not only an Amendment on Clause 87 but the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If we abide by the Chairman's generous interpretation we shall get along all right.

Mr. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Jennings. Having read the Clause carefully, it would seem that some of my arguments which were challenged now have more validity. Should not the Ruling be varied, because there is specific reference in Clause 87 to Clause 86(2)?

The Temporary Chairman: The point is well made, and I hope that hon. Members take note of the arguments.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne): I speak with some diffidence because it is always a little odd for a Member to complain of the lack of progress of a Clause and then make a speech which takes up the time of the Committee. Therefore, I promise to be very brief.
The Committee is making rather heavy weather of the Clause. It is conceded by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it does not put a blanket ban on sympathetic strikes in the sense that it does not ban a strike in support of a strike which is legitimate and is not an unfair industrial act under some other Clause of the Bill. The Clause says in the simplest possible language that if a person or union is guilty of an unfair industrial act it is only common sense to say that a person who aids and abets such action by strike action is also guilty of an unfair act.
If we did not have the Clause in the Bill, the result would be completely absurd. Clause 7 seeks to ban the pre-entry closed shop. If Clause 87 were not added to the Bill we would be in the absurd situation that, whereas workers in a shop could not take strike action to enforce a pre-entry closed shop, people in the shop next door could take strike action to enforce a pre-entry closed shop.

That would be veritable midsummer madness. If we provide in the Bill that certain industrial action is unfair and is not permitted, we cannot later in the Bill allow people working next door to the people directly affected to take that form of action. That is what the Clause is about, and I do not see any mystery about it.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that perhaps the Bill would become law by March. I am sure that people outside would be absolutely delighted if that were possible, but I am afraid that it is crying for the moon. I make this criticism, with the greatest respect for the hon. Member, who I know has studied the Bill and made a number of very useful contributions in Committee. He said that, as a result of the Bill, employees will have no right to combine.
Hon. Members should be very careful about how they put their arguments. The sort of phrase used by the hon. Gentleman will be latched on to by people in the country. When the hon. Gentleman stops to reflect for a moment, I am sure that he will agree with me that the Bill does nothing of the sort. Nowhere in the Bill are there provisions which take away from the working man the right to combine. So let us all learn to be a little more careful about our language so that people in the country do not get a misleading impression of what the Bill is about.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been deeply disturbed at some of the advertising in the Press undertaken by the T.U.C. which bears not the slightest relationship to the Bill's contents. I had to comment at a meeting the other day—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the terms of the Clause.

Mr. Waddington: I realise that I was skating on thin ice, Mr. Jennings, but I was merely trying to reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Tottenham. He said in terms that as a result of this Bill employees would have no right to combine. I wanted to make it clear—and I take it no further than that—that the Bill does nothing of the sort. I am sure that the hon. Member will concede, on reflection, that not only does the Bill not do that but certainly this


Clause does not. The Committee would probably, in these circumstances, be wise to move on to more interesting Clauses.

Mr. Atkinson: What I was arguing was that I challenged this definition of the term "unfair" or "unfair practice". I then went on to relate my remarks to that and said that the Bill denies workers the right to combine, in effect, to commit an "unfair practice" in the terms used by the Government. Would not the hon. Member agree that what the Bill is doing is making it impossible for workers to combine to commit an "unfair practice"?

Mr. Waddington: What the Bill says is that certain practices should be considered—and normal people would so consider them—unfair to the extent—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Waddington: I am talking about normal——

Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton): Who the hell are normal or ordinary people?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not a proper parliamentary practice for an hon. Member on a Front Bench to say, "Who the hell are ordinary people?" The hon. Member must withdraw that unparliamentary expression—once again.

Mr. Heller: I have no intention of withdrawing anything at all. I merely asked the hon. Member who the hell are ordinary people. What does he mean?

The Temporary Chairman: There is a limit to the type of language which one can use in the Chamber, and I think that that language is derogatory language. I am not asking the hon. Member to withdraw the sense or the content, but just the form, of the expression.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Jennings, I have called a spade a spade. If you say that that is unparliamentary I will withdraw the term which I used. But I will now ask the hon. Member who are the normal people he is talking about? I am assuming that all the trade unionists and their wives and families who number thousands—indeed, millions—of people are normal. Is the

hon. Member saying they are not normal? Is that what the hon. Member is saying?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member has withdrawn the expression.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The Temporary Chairman: I call Mr. Waddington to answer in a sentence.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking): On a point of Order——

The Temporary Chairman: Later. Mr. Waddington.

Mr. Waddington: I was replying——

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Temporary Chairman: I have called the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) to answer an intervention by the hon. Member. I will take a point further to the point of order in a moment. Mr. Waddington.

Mr. Waddington: I was in the course of replying to an intervention—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Temporary Chairman: I am not taking any further point of order because we are dealing with a point of order. I now call Mr. Waddington to deal with the question. I will come back to a point of order.

Mr. Waddington: I was in fact answering an intervention by the hon. Member for Tottenham and then perhaps I could come to the question which was posed.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order.

The Temporary Chairman: We cannot take a fresh point of order. We are on one.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. We are not on a point of order, Mr. Jennings. The hon. Member says he is replying to some other point than that raised from our Front Bench.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. A point of order was raised. An intervention was made. I am asking Mr. Waddington to reply to the point which was raised. Then I will take the further point of order.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Waddington: Could I make one thing plain? I did not hear any remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. I was unaware of it. I was answering the point made by the hon. Member for Tottenham. If I could finish what I was saying in reply to the hon. Member for Tottenham——

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings.

The Temporary Chairman: All right. I will take the point of order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. McNamara.

Mr. McNamara: You ruled before, Mr. Jennings, that you could not take a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) because there was a reply being made to an intervention. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) has been making a reply—not to a point of order but to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). Surely according to the rules, when a point of order is made, it is for the Chair to stop the proceedings on the business while points of order are discussed. Therefore, my point of order is that I am asking you why on that point of order you have not asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barking to make his point of order.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I asked the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) to reply to an intervention which was in fact a point of substance. We may have been confused in thinking that a point of order may have occurred. I am quite prepared now, in view of the representations made, to consider a point of order. The Chair can always come back to a point if one has made a mistake—and I admit it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know the Committee recognises that. Therefore I now come to the point of order. I think we are all making mistakes at the moment.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Jennings. I am most grateful to you for your very handsome correction of your slip. We all know that mistakes can be made, even

by someone as exalted as yourself. The point I was raising on a point of order, and raise now, was precisely your intervention on my hon. Friend's remark from the Front Bench, because I have been here a good many years—indeed, you have, too—and I have heard the word "hell" used occasionally, without rebuke; and I was wondering whether, for the guidance of the Committee, you could quote some precedents from Rulings by either Chair that such a phrase "what the hell" should not be used. I am afraid that I used a very naughty word— "damn"—yesterday and I was not called to order. Is "hell" really out of order?

The Temporary Chairman: "Hell" in certain contexts is neither unparliamentary nor——

An Hon. Member: You have just said it is out of order.

The Temporary Chairman: Let the Chair finish a sentence, for goodness' sake. There is a list of proscribed words in Erskine May—I think round about page 712. The word "hell", to my memory, is not included, but when the word "hell" is used in the context in which the hon. Member used it I think it exceeds parliamentary politeness and decorum. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If there is no precedent about the use of the word "hell", then I have created one. I have objected to the expression.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. As you know, Mr. Jennings, in the many years you and I have been here I have always had a high regard for the Chair. I am a little concerned about the Ruling which you have just given, because in the heat of the moment, a week ago, when I was talking about this Bill, I said that the Government were in a hell of a mess and the country was in a hell of a mess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those words appear in HANSARD. What is more important is, I was not rebuked by the occupant of the Chair in this Committee at that time.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not bound by what other Chairmen think or say. I am bound by my own standards in the Chair, as well as by precedents, Standing Orders, tradition. I think, as I said before, that that was an objectionable and unparliamentary expression. If


I think it so, I have as much right to say so as the hon. Member thinks he has to use it. I am entitled to say so. If in fact I have created a precedent—well, all well and good. I think it is time that hon. Members just looked at some of the language which is being used in the present Parliament. I am no Puritan. Hon. Members who know me know that, but I object to such an expression being used, certainly when I am in the Chair, and I shall keep on saying so.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. We have had this little fracas and I hope that the Committee will now get on with the business. I will not express an opinion on whether I disagree or agree with the Chairman's Ruling, but I have withdrawn my statement on the basis of the Chairman having asked me to do so. It can perhaps be pursued at a different time and place. I ask the Committee now to get on with the business.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waddington: I was saying that I fully understand that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) disapproves of and dislikes the whole concept of unfair and fair industrial action. It is one thing to say that one objects to the creation of this new concept of fair and unfair industrial actions, but it is another thing to go so far as to say that as a result of the passing of the Bill employees will have no right to combine.
I was invited to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He asked me to say what I meant by normal and ordinary people. When I was speaking in Yorkshire on Friday night I was asked a question, "Don't you realise that there are 10 million trade unionists in the country most of whom have wives and families? I have tried to work it out and they represent 68 per cent. of the population, so you have no mandate for the Bill." I said, "What sort of fantasy world are we living in? I do not represent Bournemouth or a seaside resort, I come from Nelson, which used to be called 'little Moscow'. If I go into Nelson on Saturday morning I do not get lynched, I am far more likely to be approached by a wife who says, 'I wish you would tell my Jack to get back to

work and use a bit of common sense.'" That is the sort of approach that is made to Members of Parliament in their constituencies. That is what I mean when I refer to ordinary people. The ordinary people are behind the Bill and we know it from their reactions in the constituencies.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): Time and time again in considering the Bill we have had from the Government bench in reply to criticisms from the Opposition the answer that a registered trade union is protected. In considering Clause 86 that stock answer cannot be made. Registered trade unions are not protected under Clause 86.
My hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) both touched upon the way in which Clause 86 undermines the solidarity of trade union organisation. Since registered trade unions are not protected by Clause 86, considerable point is put on what the hon. Member for Penistone said about the workers feeling isolated. If they do something which is an unfair industrial practice they cannot be backed up by a registered trade union because the trade union would then be in breach of Clause 86.
In the centre of Clause 86 are the words "aiding and abetting". These are words of criminal application, not of civil application. Although it has been said on many occasions on the Government benches that the concepts embodied in the Bill are civil concepts, here a criminal concept enters in. I stress the width of those words "aiding and abetting". They are as wide and their meaning is at least as sinister as the word "induce" in Clause 85. In the criminal courts juries are told that aiding and abetting is sufficiently established if there is a look-out man while a safe blowing is going on in an office or factory. The look-out man is just as guilty of the safe blowing as those who are actually doing it. That is the width of the concept that is being applied here.
While many things done by unregistered organisations, by ad hoc bodies of workers, are unfair industrial practices although they would be perfectly fair if they were done by trade unions, many things which it is now legitimate for trade unions to do would not be fair


practices under the Bill. Certainly Clause 86 would strike at many things which are done in the workshop and which are now considered fair and perfectly legitimate industrial procedures.
I apologise for referring, in passing only, to Clause 85, but it is important to notice how far the attack on the freedom of conversation and the liberty of speech between workers on the shop floor goes in these two Clauses. The curtailment of liberty is so extreme that I would be inclined to say that these two Clauses impose a kind of statutory "Coventry" on workers. I make a passing reference to Clause 85 because the unfair practices in Clause 85 will be struck at by Clause 86. If in a workshop there is a source of disagreement and the workers are annoyed about something—an illustration was given in our last debate of a time and motion study of girls going to the lavatory—it will be obvious to anyone who has ever seen a workshop that the workers will converse amongst themselves about it.
Yesterday criticism was made about the difficulty of getting evidence, but one would only have to put in a tape recorder to hear conversations all round the workshop. The workers would be discussing their grievances and saying what might be done about them. My criticism of these two Clauses is that that conversation on any view would be subject to the construction that it is inducing. When one worker says to another, "We must take action about this", the first worker could be taken to be inducing the second worker to take action. It is no good saying that it would be all right for a spontaneous walk-out or a spontaneous laying-down of tools to take place, because, if before that there had been conversation between the workers, this would be construed as inducing and, whether they were or were not members of a trade union, this would be unfair practice.
When it comes to the trade union seeking to back up the workers who can be charged with inducing each other to break their contracts, the trade union cannot give that official support because by doing so it would be aiding and abetting in terms of Clause 86.
If, after a conversation which could be construed as inducing, a worker decides to stop work or to lay down his

tools, that is unfair practice and automatically under Clause 85 once he has done that any further conversation could be regarded as abetting, and, if action follows, as abetting a strike.

Mr. Gower: While I accept some of the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman, does he not agree that what he fears will arise only if there is an original unfair industrial practice, and any reference which is likely to arise would be based on the original unfair industrial practice and not on any secondary matters of the kind he describes?

Mr. Murray: It is certainly true that the section has to be preceded by an unfair industrial practice. Apart from the three Clauses which we are dealing with in Part V, there are no fewer than 22 heads of unfair industrial practice. Of these, a great many heads of unfair industrial practice are practices that would be fair for a trade union but unfair for an organisation of workers that is not registered. That means that many things which the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and I would regard as perfectly legitimate industrial practices today will be struck at by Clause 86.
I ask the Government Front Bench to think again about these Clauses. I have spoken carefully and avoided speaking about Clause 87, for which I ought to be congratulated. All of the Clauses in this part of the Bill are open to the same criticism and I call upon the Government to drop Part V or else to think again about it and, if they are not prepared to drop it, at least exclude from these provisions conversations between fellow workers about conditions.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West): If we take the Clause discussed last night and the other related Clauses, 86 and 87, which we cannot discuss, then in my opinion this is the introduction of Big Brother into industrial relations. This is 1984.

Mr. Orme: Fascism.

Mr. Loughlin: This part of the Bill tells the worker, "You must not talk, you must not suggest that anyone should do something, and if you do so we will take action against you". My biggest regret is that the Solicitor-General or the


Secretary of State did not introduce this Clause. I am sorry to sound parrot-like, but here again we have imprecision. It will need a battery of lawyers to tell people precisely what is meant by the words in Clause 86.
There have been arguments as to whether it applies to registered trade unions. The difficulty about the Bill is that it has been framed from theory but will not be applicable in practice without the results we have suggested. The Solicitor-General explained clearly in an intervention why this would not catch the full-time trade union official belonging to a registered trade union, or the funds of that union. This is quite true from the language of the Bill. However, what happens in practice is the important thing. I will try to illustrate this simply because I think the Solicitor-General ought to examine the applicability of this Clause rather than its theory.
Suppose that there is a large holding branch in a trade union, where the general branch combines with people in various industries because the membership in the given unit is not large enough to justify a separate branch. This is not fanciful. Many of the big unions adopt this procedure. I will draw from my own experience again and relate this to U.S.D.A.W. We organised a laundry. The laundry workers are among the lowest paid workers in the country. We put them in the general branch. The laundry workers, rightly or wrongly, and if I was an official I might say wrongly, came out on unofficial strike. It was a long strike and they were low-paid people with no strike fund. At the branch meeting, at which the full-time union official was present, the rest of the branch members decide to make a collection for the strikers. The act in itself was illegal under this Clause because it would be financing the strike. But what would be the position of the trade union official?
If a trade union official stands up and opposes the collection, as he has a legal responsibility to do, his life would not be worth living. If he does not oppose it he is passively supporting the unofficial strike action. In such circumstances it could be that an employer could charge a union because its official had been present. Even though it may appear that the registered unions will not be

affected, there are so many circumstances in industry under which trade unions operate that they might, whether or not they or the Solicitor-General like it, act outside the Bill.
I have a strong criticism to make of the Bill in that it has been drawn up by people with no idea of what goes on in industry. It may be good English and it may seek to deal with a given situation, but because it is not applicable to industrial conditions it is either a waste of time or else it imposes on industrial workers, registered and unregistered trade unions alike, a yoke against which they will not be able to strain.

Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North): The Solicitor-General and I have already discussed this aspect earlier in our proceedings. If he recalls it I was describing to him the situation which arose during the local authority strike in September and October, which he will recall was as popular an industrial action with the general public as one would expect. This sort of Clause is not necessary to protect members of the public from that kind of strike. He will recall that the strike was selective and certain people were brought out in various parts of the country.
In one area roadmen had been left working and the road contractors' drivers were bringing tar to the roadmen. After a while, once the strike had started, the contractors' lorrymen were unloading tar, taking the lorries into the centre of the town and picking up refuse from the dustbins (the dustmen were on strike) and taking it away to rubbish dumps.
The result was that the National Union of Public Employees blacked the contractors' lorries as a way of maintaining the integrity of the strike. On that evening the Solicitor-General in those mellifluous tones we have got to know so well in this Committee, and with that lucid exposition of the law which we have also got to know, said that this might well not be illegal in terms of the Bill.
What he has omitted to do is to bend his mind to the sort of situation that actually occurs in industry, a situation when we have a shop steward or a branch secretary, occupying such a position perhaps because no one else will do the job or because he has been a member of the


road-working gang for longer than anyone else. He has to decide whether he will black those lorries. Will he induce some action, organise it, or will he bring pressure? At the moment all that he has to do is to decide on the basis of the industrial relations elements of the situation. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to do in addition is to impose the whole network of law on top of these unfortunate people.
Unfortunate people they will be in the circumstances under which the Bill will operate. For example, if this shop steward or branch secretary blacked the lorry, through his union, because the lorry contractors were an extraneous party interceding in the dispute he might well be within the law but, without the benefit of what I am sure will be an inspiring legal volume to me— "Howe on the Law of Industrial Disputes" which we shall get for the price of several pounds in years to come—he would have to decide to stick to that sort of action, whereas what he might have done in the circumstances is to go to one of the lorry drivers and say, "Will you get your lorry drivers to stop this road-making contract?". In that event, he might well be within the terms of Clause 86, especially if the lorry driver told the roadmen's shop steward, "I do not want to go back to my employers and say that we have blacked this contract. But, if you can black it, I will tell them that the contract has been blacked, and matters can proceed smoothly".
That is all very well, but people who become the secretaries of trade union branches are not normally the sort of people who say to themselves, "If I go about this operation in one way, I shall be within the law; whereas, if I go about it in another, I shall be outside the law". The liability of a trade union, of its shop stewards, its members and the union funds may depend not on the action taken at the point of the dispute but on the way in which the action is taken. If this Clause proves to be a contribution to the construction of good industrial relations, I shall be very surprised.
I understand that it might be a defence under Clause 86 for a local branch secretary to explain that he was acting within the authority that his union had given him. However, on this sort of selective strike, it is difficult for branch

secretaries and shop stewards to be confident that the way in which they are acting is within the law. For example, if a selective strike is called, the industrial action taken by the members of a union is a matter which must be taken by the national executive committee of the union, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, action in a dispute such as the one that I have described must be taken quickly and on the spot by someone who knows the situation, namely, the shop steward. In other words, a formal situation may arise where the authority to take this sort of action is reserved to the executive committee, whereas the actual action is taken by the shop steward on the spot.
The shop steward on the spot having taken action, the matter then goes up the trade union line of command to the area officer, the divisional officer, the national officer and the executive committee, who may back the shop steward. If they do not and the shop steward becomes the source of an action under the Clause, he may be forced to explain that what he considered right at the time has proved subsequently to be wrong, that he did not have the authority of his union and, therefore, that he has committed an unfair industrial practice.
These are some of the practical problems which the Government seek to impose on trade unionists supposedly in the interests of creating good industrial relations. In fact, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are creating chaos, disorder and confusion on the ground.
I have been interested in industrial relations for about 15 years. Looking back over the years, one of the most socially productive industrial actions that I can recall was one which may be banned by the Clause. I do not know whether I shall have all my right hon. and hon. Friends with me, but I believe that the growth of compensation for redundancy has been one of the most constructive achievements in industrial relations in my 15 years' experience. I give the Solicitor-General the point that a large part came about as a result of the introduction of the law into the subject, although the law was introduced following meticulous negotiations between the B.E.C., as it then was, and the T.U.C. The Measure was not introduced until agreement had been reached. However, I say that in passing.


It is difficult to comprehend at the beginning of the 1970s what was the attitude to compensation for redundancy even 15 years ago. I remember how managers in my industry would start a discussion on the subject of compensation for redundancy with the statement that a labourer in the industry was on an hourly rate and therefore was entitled only to an hour's pay or an hour's notice when the time came to dismiss him, no matter what the circumstances were. It may be that they never intended that to be the ultimate solution, but it was the point from which they started their argument on the subject of redundancy.
6.15 p.m.
Against that background, in the summer of about 1956, a number of car workers drew their weekly pay on a Friday afternoon and discovered in their pay packets a week's pay, together with another week's pay and a little note thanking them for their past services and saying that they would not be required in a week's time. Without resorting to the negotiating machinery, large numbers of those car workers went on strike against what they regarded as this inhuman handling of a redundancy problem.
A process of negotiation by means of Press statements began in which the general attitude of the management could be summed up as, "We do not care if you go on strike because we do not want your services, anyway. We were being decent in keeping you for another week, so you might as well strike now".
Clearly, those strikers were in a very weak position. I cannot remember whether the strike was made official by the Transport and General Workers Union. The situation was solved by Mr. Frank Cousins, who had recently become General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, telling his dockers to black exports of cars at the docks. The result was that the Coventry car employers caved in rapidly. Compensation for redundancy was negotiated for the car workers who had been threatened with dismissal, and, from then on, a social movement was begun which resulted in the Redundancy Compensation Act and the provision of redundancy compensation to almost every employee who is dis-

charged as a result of technological change.
I would like the Committee to contemplate what may have been the feelings of members of the public affected by the secondary action to which I have referred. They may have been bitter. Dock employers were losing money, and they may have been bitter. Other members of the public inconvenienced as a result of the non-flow of cars through the docks may have been bitter. But if that action had not been taken, all members of the public would now be worse off since it would not have started the social and industrial movement which has ended up by giving the country a method of redeploying its labour as painlessly as possible and introducing many technological changes over the past 15 years with a relative lack of resistance. All that has been possible because of this conception of redundancy payments, and the net result is that every member of the public today enjoys a higher standard of living than would have been possible if this movement had not been started by that strike. We might have achieved the compensation later and possibly in a less satisfactory form. But it was that strike more than any other that I can recall in my 15 years' experience of industrial relations which made such an important contribution to the way in which we look at these matters.
This is the sort of sympathetic action which, unless it is handled carefully by trade union officials on the ground, will render trade union officials liable to action under this legislation. From time to time, right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite put their hands on their hearts and say that they are in favour of the right to withdraw labour. I am sure that they are sincere. However, a little gloss should be put on their attitude. What they are saying is that, provided that a strike is ineffective, it is moral and may be legal. But if a strike is effective, it is immoral and should be declared illegal by every possible means at the disposal of this Government.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge): I should like to put one question to my hon. and learned Friend. May I ask


why he wants the words "threaten to take"? I can understand that my hon. and learned Friend wants power to take steps. But is he not giving himself a great deal of unnecessary trouble by the vague words "threaten to take"? Will they not cause something complex of definition?
Surely the purpose of the Clause would be served perfectly well if those words were omitted. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will tell us his thinking about them. I should like to know the reasons which have promoted my hon. and learned Friend to put those three words into the Clause.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty): The point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) is germane to the discussion. What I hope will also be germane is to state categorically that our objections to Clause 86 are based on the knowledge that it is intended to strike at the very sinews of collective bargaining and trade unionism.
No doubt the Solicitor-General will employ his tortuous semantic meanderings later to try to prove that the Clause does not apply to this, that or the other strike, or that there are so many exemptions that it will be a last resort sanction imposed upon trade unionists which will apply only in rare circumstances, rare strikes, or, to use another term, something sort of a strike. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain what "short of a strike" means.
We have come to the conclusion that the phraseology of the Clause and the way that it has been presented by hon. Gentlemen opposite—notably the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington)—confirms our worst fears and suspicions about the nature of the Bill and this Clause in particular.
Throughout the debates on the various Clauses we have had constant repetition by the Secretary of State, by the Solicitor-General, and, almost without exception, by all hon. Members opposite who have spoken that they believe in strong trade unionism, that they wish to see the development and expansion of trade unionism, that they wish to see the liberalising of industrial relations, and that they want to remove all kinds of social injustices from industry.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot say that they want to expand, support and strengthen trade unionism and simultaneously remove from trade unionism the basic fundamental means of securing industrial rights. It is no good dodging the issue. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must understand that it is absolutely fundamental that, if they seek to remove, usurp or infringe the right of workers to undertake industrial action in support of other industrial action, whether an unfair or fair industrial practice, or neither one thing nor the other, it will be interpreted correctly as a deliberate attempt to undermine the strength of trade unionism.
The point is well made by comparison with American experience. I should like to quote from someone who can be accorded the status of an authority on American trade unionism, George Meany, President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. In a document written at the end of last year about the proposed British system of industrial relations and comparing it with the system in America throughout the years, he said:
Since we have had no experience of freedom from these bans"—
what he calls "secondary boycotts" and what we call "sympathetic strikes"—
we cannot state with assurance what different effects would have resulted. I am myself reasonably certain that union organisation would have occurred, in the absence of these restrictions, in various fields … where unscrupulous employers have largely blocked organisation.
We cannot speak of America in terms of strong trade unionism when only 23 to 25 per cent. of the total labour force is unionised. No one can talk about strengthening trade unionism when, because of statute and common law throughout the history of industrial America, trade unionists have been forbidden in practice from undertaking sympathetic action. No one can argue that it is a system which has introduced a more peaceful, serene, pacific system of industrial relations in America.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have acknowledged time and again that America's strike record and recruitment in certain sectors of the work force, notably among women and white collar workers, is significantly worse in ours, and that the disruption caused by strikes of public employees, which are in law


illegal, is greater than here. All these things have happened in America where sympathetic strikes of any description have been illegal throughout its history of trade unionism, with the possible exception of the years between 1941 and 1947, when a favourable Federal Court judgment gave them a certain legality.
If the Government argue and mean that they want to strengthen trade unionism, they will remove from our minds the most marginal suspicion of any attempt to strike at sympathetic action by removing the Clause. We know that this will not happen, so the suspicion will remain. It will be compounded and turned into industrial strife by bitterness because of the disingenuous hypocrisy of those who say, "We want industrial peace and strong trade unionism, but we will, by law, deny trade unionism the means of strengthening itself".

The Solicitor-General: It is important for the Committee and the country to understand the objectives behind the Clause and not to interpret it too widely. I certainly cannot accept the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that unless we abandon the Clause, along with almost every other Clause, our whole exercise is unacceptable. I do not believe that people who have closely studied the present situation with genuine concern can come to the conclusion that anything which introduces the marginal suspicion of any curtailment of the absolute right of anyone to induce industrial action for any purpose must be rejected. I do not believe that that represents the feeling of the Committee or of the country.

Mr. Orme: Speak for your side.

The Solicitor-General: We are trying to make reasonable proposals which maintain the balance between the interests of society and of individual workers and the legitimate interest of the Labour Movement for maintaining its strength.
Hon. Members have said in the debate, although less frequently as we have got closer to understanding what the Clause is about, that we are seeking to outlaw all sympathetic strikes. We are not. It may be thought outside this Committee that we are seeking to outlaw all sympa-

thetic strikes without really bothering to define what we may mean by "sympathetic strikes", which is a phase more easily uttered than defined. We are not seeking to do any such thing. We recognise the importance of the trade union movement and to workers in their own organisations to be able to rely upon and to invoke the assistance of borrowed strength. We merely suggest that there are some areas and some situations where that is either not necessary or not desirable to proceed in that way. [Interruption.] Parliament decides. That is what we have been concerned with during these discussions. We are striving to strike a balance in pursuit of the central proposition that the calling of strike action in certain situations is too often regarded as a weapon of first, rather than last, resort.
6.30 p.m.
It is for that reason that the inclusion of the words "threaten to take" assumes some importance. Anyone who has been concerned with this problem will know that it is much easier to stop people coming out on strike than it is to persuade them to go back once they have come out. In the range of situations which we have identified as unfair it is right that someone who is threatened with the calling of a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective should be able to get that threat averted. It is at that point that the day may be saved. It is too late if a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective is called. Then the only way of dealing with the situation may be the awarding of compensation.
Once we accept that there are certain strikes the calling of which are unfair because they are in pursuit of an unfair objective—and I appreciate that there is not common ground between both sides of the Committee on that point—it is right, logical and necessary that a strike in support of one designed to secure an unfair objective shosuld itself be identified as unfair. I agree that it is right and logical that if the original strike is unfair—which can arise in the case of some strikes that are called by registered unions, as well as unregistered organisation—no matter what the nature of the organisation that calls or procures the supporting of the strike, it is equally unfair. Subject to the important qualification mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North


(Mr. Moyle), even then an official of the union, acting within the scope of his authority, remains protected under the law.

Mr. McNamara: I want to take the Solicitor-General back to the first part of his argument, when he spoke about a sympathetic strike in support of a fair strike—that is to say, a strike legitimately called by a registered trade union. I am in rather a difficulty on that point. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to help me by citing a possible example. If we take two separate bargaining units, as defined in the Bill, it would be possible to have a legitimate strike in one bargaining unit and a sympathetic strike in the second bargaining unit, with the consequence of the second sympathetic strike in the other bargaining unit not in actual dispute not being affected by Clause 87(1)(a) and (b). That is the difficulty.

The Solicitor-General: I am reluctant to be drawn into answering that question precisely. [Laughter.] Hon. Members need not laugh. I shall be happy to answer the point as far as the rules of order permit. I shall deal with it properly as far as answering other questions permit.

Mr. McNamara: Sir Robert, you will have heard what the Solicitor-General has said. Am I not right in saying that because of the contents of lines 36 and 37, and because of the reference back of Clause 87 to Clause 86(2), the Solicitor-General would in all probability be in order in answering the question that I have asked him?

The Chairman: I have every confidence in the hon. and learned Member's ability to keep in order. He will recollect what I said earlier. I think that we can proceed safely along those lines.

The Solicitor-General: I am trying to deal with the matter in the context of the debate as it has gone so far. I shall come to the hon. Member's point.
The first proposition is that Clause 86 is designed logically and inevitably to curtail the right to call supporting strikes, but only where the primary strike is itself unfair. That is the objective that I commend to the Committee.
The point concerning the relationship between Clauses 86 and 87 is a different one. Clause 87 is directed in a quite different way at a particular kind of secondary strike, whether the original strike is fair or unfair. I acknowledge that. It is differently designed. Clause 86 deals only with the strike in support of a primary strike that is unfair. Clause 87 can attach itself to situations where the primary strike is fair but the nature of the damage sought to be inflicted by the strike at which Clause 87 is directed is one which Parliament, if it accepts the Clause, regards as unfair.
I do not want to go too far into that point. At the moment, through what is described in the Donovan Report as the maze of case law, it is possible in certain circumstances for an employer at whom a secondary strike is directed to secure an order restraining that secondary strike. It depends upon a very complex series of hoops through which he and the trade union have to go, and in recent case decisions a series of judgments have been arrived at, some of which, it may be said, agree with what my hon. Friends and I regard as fair and some of which may not agree with what we regard as fair. The important point is that the present law is securing its results as a result of a random legal pattern not related to the merits of the industrial situation. That point has been made by a number of commentators. Professor Grunfeld in at least two cases has made the point, and Professor A. D. Hughes has made the same point—both saying that there are certain situations where strike action in the secondary form can be properly regarded as unfair but that the present law does not achieve that objective in a rational way.
We are seeking in Clause 87 to say that if a strike is called the person calling it is committing an unfair industrial practice if he is doing so in order to procure the breach of a specific commercial contract by a third party who is in no sense involved in the initial strike or dispute with which the strike order is concerned. If he can show that the person whom he is attempting to get to break the commercial contract is a party to the primary dispute and has taken action in support of the primary employer he is entitled to secure the breaches of that contract as he may.


The only situation in which Clause 87 is designed to bite is that in which somebody sets out to procure breaches of a commercial contract on the part of someone in no sense connected with the original dispute.

Mr. McNamara: I am keen to follow the Solicitor-General's thinking on this point. A dispute may arise in which the person referred to by the Solicitor-General is not a primary party to the dispute—that is, but for a contractual relationship, that person would not be in the dispute. If the result of the making of a contractual relationship is such that the person is being employed to break the strike—that is, by taking goods or services into that factory which will enable the person against whom the original dispute is being fought to continue his operations—is that then, for his purposes, aiding and abetting the original party to the dispute, in this case the employer, because he is then able to perform his normal function? Is strikebreaking of that sort legal?
My second point is, how far does the hon. and learned Gentleman draw his line——

The Solicitor-General: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I have been generous in giving way, and we are on the fringes of order in the debate on the Clause. I must be allowed to answer questions one at a time.

The Chairman: That is fair on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is being rather too long.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a difficult point.

The Solicitor-General: I am anxious not to go further than I should in the discussion of Clause 87. Clause 87 is designed to deal with the secondary strike whether or not the primary strike is fair. It is designed to deal with the secondary strike directed at the entirely innocent party, as we would put it. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the external party who takes action in support of the primary em-

ployer against whom the original strike is called, in a way which the hon. Gentleman suggested, would not fall into that category, and the strike against him would be fair and in no sense restricted by Clause 87. Perhaps we can return to discussing the many examples on that when we discuss Clause 87.
The central point about the Clause 86 strike is that it becomes unfair under the Clause only if the person against whom the complaint is brought is deliberately setting out to procure a secondary strike in support of the original unfair wrong purpose. This is at the root of some of the examples given by hon. Members opposite. For example, the present Post Office strike situation is about a fair objective, namely, the terms and conditions of the employees of the Post Office Corporation. There is no question of any secondary or sympathetic strike taken or induced in support of that fair primary strike being regarded as unfair.
Similarly, on the point put by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the Fine Tubes strike, the original strike was in respect of the terms and conditions of pay—a wages dispute—and secondary strikes called in support of or in sympathy with that remain fair.
The same goes for the example put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North when he spoke about the strike over redundancy pay. Certainly, if a strike were called, back in the time before the redundancy pay provisions were on the Statute Book in 1965, in protest at the lack of intention of the employer to make redundancy payments, that would be a strike about a term and condition of employment which would be a fair one, and any supporting or sympathetic action in respect of that would be fair.
If the original strike was itself unofficial, called not by the union but by unofficial wild-cat people in breach of original contracts of employment, then that would be unfair and the right to have sympathy strikes in support of that would not follow. But, surely, if the original strike in support of which sympathetic action is going to be justified is one that is related and can be related to terms and conditions of employment which can be perfectly fair, then it is not unreasonable at least to expect a strike to be called on due notice or by a union exercising authority.

Mr. Moyle: As far as I know, the hon. and learned Gentleman has expounded the legal position quite correctly, but would he bend his mind to the industrial relations situation where there is an explosion of wrath which may ante-date by a considerable time any official recognition of the dispute. In the intervening time, what happens to the sympathetic action?

Mr. Orme: What about the nonregistered union?

The Solicitor-General: That is the point which I was making, and an entirely fair one. That is where one returns to the provisions of Clause 102(3), that if the original strike, be it fair or unfair, called by a registered or an unregistered organisation is caused or provoked by clumsy conduct on the part of management of the kind which has been identified and described in that situation, then the Industrial Court—

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: How long will it take the Industrial Court?

The Solicitor-General: That is an aspect of some importance to appreciate here. In the present state of our law, developing perhaps unpredictably by case law, if a court now decides that a strike was unlawful through the present series of hoops, the ordinary courts have no inbuilt power to say that that strike, although it may be unlawful in the present law, was so manifestly provoked by management's incompetence that it would be wrong to grant any remedy in respect of it. In this framework the court is required to take into account the extent to which the original strike was provoked by management's conduct.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the Solicitor-General goes on to the wider problems of what happens if the union happens to be unregistered, will he deal with this? Does he not see that in arguing on the Bill—we do not accept, and the trade union movement does not accept, that there are unfair industrial practices—that the original strike was an unfair industrial practice he is now depriving workpeople in the workshops of their right to judge whether they wish to express solidarity because in their opinion they do not accept the definition "unfair industrial practice" as having given rise to the first conflict? That

is a terrific widening of the deprivation of rights of working people to use their judgment on whether they are to exercise sympathy or solidarity or not.

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept that it can be put in that way. The restraint is only in respect of the particular identified unfair practices. If someone is to claim the authority—as sometimes is done without the full backing of trade union—to call sympathetic strikes in pursuit of an objective already being pursued by other strikers, it is surely not unreasonable to say that the person claiming the right to call such a secondary supporting strike should satisfy himself as to the legitimacy of the primary objective.
In any given situation, judgment has to be made in the light of facts. The kind of sympathy strikes which I have in mind are those on recognition issues, one of the matters which have caused a great deal of unnecessary hardship to people employed in industry, and more widely than that. Most of the cases which current case-law is working out to give remedies concern recognition strikes, like Stratford v. Lindley and some other recent cases. The Torquay Grand Hotel case is another one. It is being done in the present situation creakingly and by chance.
What we are saying in the framework of the Bill is that there are new remedies per Clauses 42 to 48 where there is a recognition of a dispute, and that it is therefore fair to say that if a trade union is given the right to claim those remedies from an independent agency, it is unnecessary for it to resort to strike action when alternative machinery is made available for it.
It follows from that that if the union is striking for recognition against employer A and can have a remedy in respect of that claim, and if the strike action against employer A is unfair, it would be illogical if a strike by that union or by others supporting it against employer B should not be regarded as unfair as well, because they are part of the same use and exercise of borrowed strength. Borrowed strength can by all means be used in the support of ordinary, fair strikes; but I suggest to the Committee that unfair strikes where remedies are provided in the alternative in this way do not need to have this support.


The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) discussed a situation where it would be wrong to think that the Clause would prevent a union from striking. If because of a primary strike, fair or unfair, at a given place, the work-people at another factory were confronted with a change of work because the second factory manager was going to support the management at the first factory, that again would not be unfair, because people striking at the second workplace would have a fresh and separate primary cause of dispute.

Mr. Atkinson: What about the unregistered union point, to which the Solicitor-General was to return?

The Solicitor-General: I have made it plain on these Clauses that the registered or unregistered union calling a secondary strike in support of an unfair objective is acting equally unfairly; but the official of the registered union is not, if acting within the scope of his authority.
Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton we are not here challenging the principle of people banding together to assert rights. That is at the heart of collective organisation in industrial relations. However, we assert that the principle is not one that can prevail over all else so as to threaten or destroy the rights of other people in all circumstances. What we are saying is that it is certainly right for that principle to prevail for most purposes—for the overwhelming majority of purposes where the original cause of dispute is fair, and it is entirely right for borrowed strength to be used to that end; but not for all, not when the damage being done to that outside party—the innocent party; this trespasses on Clause 87 as well—is disproportionate to the scale and connectedness of the grievance which is provoking the primary strike. This is the balance we have tried to strike in Clause 87.
In the examples the hon. Gentleman put to me, if work was being switched from one dockyard to another—say, from Devonport to Rosyth—then, without knowing the detailed structure of Her Majesty's Dockyards management as the hon. Gentleman does, if they were in the single management of one organisation the primary-struck employer would be

one and the same throughout; it would all be part of the same primary strike.
However, if the work was switched from one company to another company which was quite separate and distinct as a means of combating the strike at the primary place of strike, the second company could no longer be regarded as extraneous. It would by taking action—by taking work which would formerly have been done at the first dockyard—be acting in support of the first employer or his management. So, again, the unions would be free to strike in each of those situations.
Therefore, we return to the reasonable situation, that in the area of strikes the calling of which we suggest to the Committee is unfair because alternative remedies are provided it should, and must logically be, equally unfair for there to be a supporting strike called in support of that unfair primary objective.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster): Until the Solicitor-General made his speech I thought that I clearly understood what this debate was about and what this part of the Bill was about. When the Solicitor-General sat down I felt like the little Napoleon-like figure in the television advert who needs an Alka-Seltzer to unfizz. I wish someone would unfizz me after the Solicitor-General's speech.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) is not in his place. I understood, after listening to his speech, why there were only 20 people at his meeting in Doncaster last Friday evening. I could not help recalling while listening to him some words that Christ addressed to the lawyers. I am not given to quoting the scriptures, but it seems so very apposite on this occasion. [Interruption.] I will not talk of hell-fire and brimstone, though that might be applicable.
I commend to the Solicitor-General and his lawyer friends the words of Christ—St. Luke, 11,46:
Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Christ also said—verse 52:
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and then that were entering in ye hindered.


I can think of no more applicable or relevant words.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley): Christ was an agitator.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East): He was a Socialist agitator.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): Has not the hon. Gentleman heard the relevant saying that the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes?

Mr. Walker: I suppose that fits the hon. Gentleman equally who, no matter how authoritative he may be when theological matters are under discussion, I had not thought of as being an authoritative voice on industrial relations.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to go on and identify how he fits the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) into that context? The hon. Gentleman shares with his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley the task of putting the Opposition's point of view on this Clause.

Mr. Walker: I have always thought of the Bill as a theological matter. The responses I had evoked to my quotations from the scriptures shows how right I was.
The Bill as a whole clearly turns into an unfair industrial action almost every weapon in the trade unionists limited industrial armoury. The phrase "unfair industrial action" is a euphemism which, although it deceives nobody, is clearly to be a breach of the law—a breach of the law which, in spite of what the Solicitor-General has repeatedly said, could in some cases at least expose individuals and trade unions to orders for contempt in the county court, with all the consequences that could flow from that.
The Clause extends this very same vulnerability to any individual or trade union who directly or indirectly, deliberately or unwittingly, aid and abet the commission of any of these unfair industrial practices. I say—and here I echo what so many of my hon. Friends have said—that this is an enormous extension of the punitive provisions of the Bill, not least in the way it multiplies so many times the obnoxious effects of Clause 85.
7.0 p.m.
It is right that reference was made in the debate to Clause 87, because of the way in which that Clause is linked with and buttresses every reference to "unfair industrial practice" in the Bill, including that in Clause 87 itself. We challenge the validity of the whole concept of unfair industrial practice and its application in particular situations.
The Solicitor-General said that Clause 86 is only to prevent strike action which is designed to support unfair industrial action. But it is not just about strike action. It goes much wider than that, bad enough as that would be. It refers to
calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike
and
organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike".
In spite of the number of times on which the question has been raised, we have never yet been given an adequate explanation of what is meant by "irregular action short of a strike". There have been references to the so-called definition in Clause 148, but no more than that.
When the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was speaking, I could not help reflecting that in his references to Clause 5(1) he might have helped the Committee better if he had addressed himself to the absurdity which arises when we take Clause 86 in conjunction with Clause 5(1), that part of Clause 5 which gives every worker the right not to belong to a trade union and makes it an unfair industrial practice for anyone to seek to prevent his exercise of that right. Why did not the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend try to explain to us what will happen in the sort of situation which will almost certainly arise when people refuse to co-operate with the non-unionist, when, inevitably, they will say, "We will not work with such an antisocial individual. We will not engage in the normal industrial relationship which is so essential to the smooth functioning of industry"? In that situation, will those workers be culpable under Clause 86?
The Solicitor-General says that he is aiming only at what everybody would consider to be the need to maintain a fair balance and to prevent people from


participating in unfair action in industrial relations. My hon. Friends have given many examples culled from their deep personal experience of industry, citing disputes and various actions arising from those disputes which it would be difficult to describe as unjustified or unfair. I can think of no example given from this side of the Committee in relation to which I, as a former shop steward, should not have been prone to embark on exactly the sort of action which was described in such situations, and I do not think that the Committee would regard me as an unfair or unreasonable individual.
Last night, I deliberately curtailed my remarks in winding up the debate, but I had in mind then a recent example which had come to my notice when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment and Productivity. I thought it significant then, and I think it relevant for the Committee's attention now. A building worker at a building site in Kent had been required by his employer to work on a platform which did not comply with the building regulations. He refused to work on that platform and encouraged his workmates to do likewise. The employer said that if he did not go back to his work and allow the matter to be resolved either through a visit from the building inspector or through the intervention of his union, he would be dismissed.
Under that coercive pressure from his employer, that man returned to the platform and dissuaded his workmates from taking industrial action. Two hours later, he was dead, having fallen from the platform.
In that situation, would it have been unfair industrial action if those workmen had gone on strike to compel their employer to do what he ought to have done and, in the event, save that man's life? It seems to me that under Clause 86 the employer would have been entitled to say, "Unless you return to work, I shall haul you before the court".

The Solicitor-General: I repeat again the point which has been made many times. If ever there were a clear case in which the provisions of Clause 102 (3) would apply, the hon. Gentleman has just given it. It is inconceivable that a court

faced with the employer in that situation—

Mr. Heffer: But the man is dead.

The Solicitor-General: —seeking to restrain that strike would not take the view that the cause of the strike was the employer's attitude. The one change which the Bill would make is that the man threatened with dismissal could with confidence know that he could appeal against that unfair dismissal, and he would not have felt obliged to go back to work. In that way, the change in the law would enable him to stand on his rights and reach a different conclusion.

Mr. Walker: The Solicitor-General now tells us that the workman in that situation could console himself with the thought that, instead of having a straight choice between doing as he was told or being sacked, he would have a third option, the possibility that, if he refused to carry out the employer's instructions, he could eventually go to the court with some hope of succeeding. That would not console either him or me in such a situation. What I should have done would have been unhesitatingly, as a shop steward or not as a shop steward, to instruct—let alone advise—the work people on that site not to go upon that platform.

The Solicitor-General: Absolutely right.

Mr. Walker: I am glad to hear that, but what about the other advice which the Solicitor-General has just given us? He says that that man could now take into account the possibility of taking action in the Industrial Court. The hon. learned Gentleman makes the same error that all lawyers seem to make in assuming that work people will go to the courts with the readiness which they themselves go to pick up their fees. He seems to be unaware that the apparatus of the courts, whether the judicial apparatus set up under the Bill or the existing county courts and the rest, is an awesome apparatus from which ordinary people, very understandably, recoil.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke): The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. In the sort of situation which he has outlined, what employer


would seek to sue that man for compensation?

Mr. Walker: Hon. Members opposite in this debate, as in so many others, show an alarming lack of familiarity with the realities of not only the functioning of industry but the psychological climate within which people work, the pressures to which they are subjected, and the way in which they normally respond to those pressures.
Having given that example, I return once more to the question repeatedly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. We are still waiting for a reply. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend put it to the Secretary of State:
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify Clause 86, with regard to aiding and abetting, which hitherto has been a strictly criminal concept? Does it mean that the trade union which supports action under Clause 85 and turns a strike into an official strike is guilty of aiding and abetting and loses the immunity of the 1906 Act?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 979.]
The essential point on which my hon. Friend seeks an answer is this. Suppose an unofficial strike begins and is caught as being an unfair practice under Clause 85, but is subsequently made into an official strike by the union. Does it cease to be an unfair industrial practice? If the Solicitor-General wants to intervene to give us a clear, unambiguous answer I shall readily give way. I want him to understand very clearly the importance of the point. In the engineering industry what I have described is not an exceptional rarity, but is part of the normality, the generality of the situation. With the frequent references to the number of unofficial strikes, the Government seem not to have understood that in engineering almost every strike, because of the negotiating procedure and trade union rules, must start off as unofficial. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, having understood that, will now give us the reply we have been waiting for since Christmas, I will allow him to intervene.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman referred to the occasion when his hon. Friend raised the matter the other day—

Mr. Walker: Two months ago.

The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I was about to say that his hon. Friend raised it on Second Reading two months ago. As a result of his doing so, we have looked again at the form of words in the Clause, because the function of hon. Members raising points in debate is for us to he able to examine them.
If an unofficial strike under Clause 85 has already been induced, and thereafter the union makes it official, the union is not doing anything to aid and abet the inducing of the original unfair strike. The original unfair unofficial strike has already taken place, and nothing the union thereafter does aids and abets that.
The point put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley in the debate on Second Reading was that the use of the words "aid and abet" had criminal overtones. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) made a similar point this afternoon. We were asked to look at the matter again. Our conclusion was that the use of those words makes it plain that the union doing that is not aiding and abetting. If we had replaced the phrase with civil words, such as "supporting or assisting", or something like them, the difficulty might arise. But if a person has induced the original unfair strike, any subsequent action making it an official strike is not an aiding and abetting of the inducing of the original strike.

Mr. Walker: Does the original strike still remain an unfair industrial practice?

The Solicitor-General: It is not the strike that remains an unfair practice. The point is that the original inducing by the unofficial leader of the first strike, if that be the case, is unfair. [Laughter.] There is no point in hon. Members saying "Ha, ha". It is a matter then for very great doubt as to whether employers would in many or any cases necessarily bring proceedings in respect of the originally induced strike. In any event, thereafter the action of the union in making it official does not amount to an aiding and abetting of the original inducing.

Mr. Walker: Now we really find ourselves confronted with questions. I do not want to weary the Committee with repeated references to actual situations


that arise within industry. But many of my hon. Friends will have been confronted with a change of practice arbitrarily and suddenly introduced without fair warning by an employer. They as shop stewards or workpeople will have come to the conclusion that an unsafe practice or a health hazard is being introduced, and they must make an immediate response, afterwards seeking ratification from their district committee. It seems that when they have said to the workpeople, "We advise you not to carry out the employer's instruction until we have contacted our district committee", they have thus initiated an unofficial strike and rendered themselves guilty of an unfair industrial practice. No matter what the district committee or even the employers' federation may subsequently say, no matter what the generality of opinion may be, it still seems that they have irreversibly committed something that is illegitimate, not to say illegal, under the Bill.
The union having subsequently endorsed the action and given it an official stamp, the question arises whether it is not only the resources of the individual who induced that unfair industrial action that are exposed to the action for damages in the courts but whether the union's resources are also exposed. This is a new question. The Solicitor-General would have been well advised to apply himself to it. We keep turning over these stones in the Bill and exposing some very ugly things underneath.
The change of emphasis on the Government's part should not go unnoticed. It used to be accepted that whether a strike was official or unofficial was a question entirely within the union's discretion and its rules, which could vary from union to union. Three or four unions could be involved in a strike that was unofficial under the rules of one union, and official under the rules of the next. So, in an identical situation, some members of the work group are guilty under Clause 85 and some, for exactly the same offence, are not. There used to be talked, much more logically, about constitutional and unconstitutional strikes. Now the Government have got back on the old band wagon of unofficial strikes and official strikes, and this is

leading them into curious byways. They are getting lost on the way.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is fully aware of the point I want to make, but I make it to emphasise again to the Solicitor-General that within the engineering industry practically every strike, apart from a national strike called by the executive council, starts off as as an unofficial dispute but is possibly made official at a later stage, first by the district committee and then by the executive council. Will not it be the case now that a union such as the A.U.E.W., to protect itself, may have to make its rules such that a strike becomes official from the time the members take that action, because otherwise it is vulnerable right along the line?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend accurately puts his finger on one of the inconsistencies of the Government's approach. Their theme has been one of strengthening the central official authorities of the unions against those whom they describe as the trouble-makers at the bottom, the shop stewards. They fail to recognise that an inevitable consequence of their approach will be to compel unions to alter their rules to give the shop stewards the authority that they have so far lacked. An inevitable by-product will be a strengthening of the hands of the shop stewards. Only in that way will unions be able to give the shop steward the necessary protection.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend also pursue the point of what happens over a strike that was constitutional when it started but is then declared un-stitutional by the trade union executive. Is it totally legal one minute and the next minute illegal, and are people responsible for what happened before or what happened after?

Mr. Walker: I would not attempt to reply to that very complex point off the cuff. My hon. Friend has put a matter for reflection on the great complexity of the industrial situation. Hon. Members opposite seem to assume that what is very complex is really very simple. It is nothing of the kind. The labyrinthine process that my hon. Friend has just described is part of the procedure that


shop stewards must reconcile themselves to and work within every day of the working week.
I suspect that the Committee is getting anxious to draw the debate to a conclusion, but I do not want to finish without referring to the Solicitor-General's reference to Clause 87. I do not want to transgress on what will no doubt be an interesting debate on Clause 87, but I remind the Committee that he stated that it was important not to interpret the provisions of the Clause, and, indeed, the Bill, too widely. But it is not a question of how we interpret it; it is a question of how the courts interpret it. They will not heed the Solicitor-General's honeyed words but the black and white of the Bill.
The Solicitor-General says that he is not seeking to outlaw all sympathetic strikes. We await with eagerness and interest to see how he reconciles that statement with the sweeping and far-reaching provisions of Clause 87. That Clause clearly outlaws all strikes which lead to a breach of contract other than a breach of employment. Sympathy strikes, under Clause 86, even those that do not fall foul of the requirements of Clause 86—strikes that are in breach of contracts of employment—could often, and in many ways almost invariably, lead to a breach of commercial contract and will thus be caught under Clause 87. In effect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, "I am lying in wait with a double-barrelled gun. If I miss with the first shot I can use the second barrel."
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) went to the heart of the matter. I echo what he said. By the provisions of Clause 86,

the Government have at a stroke rendered unlawful a vast range of actions which have traditionally been part of the fabric of industrial relations for over a century. That may well be their intention, in spite of the silken words of the Solicitor-General, which implied that they were only suppressing practices which they regarded as anti-social and a deterrent to industrial efficiency. Whatever the Government may say, trade unionists and, I am sure, the whole Committee, will now be under no such illusions but will recognise that the Government's real purpose is to weaken drastically and dramatically the bargaining power of working people in industry.

My hon. Friends in earlier debates, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone again today, raised the spectre of the corporate State. Let there be no mistake. The road on which the Government are embarked, as exemplified in these Clauses, is the path that has been trodden by every Fascist dictator this century. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Other Governments have shown that one can produce a quietness and passivity in industrial relations by removing the power and the strength of the workers to react against conditions which bear hardly on their lives. The Government are removing weapons which have traditionally been available to trade unions and trade unionists to fight for their cause—and this is the practice which has been carried out by every Fascist dictator in this century. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 250.

Division No. 165.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Carlisle, Mark


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Body, Richard
Cary, Sir Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Robert
Channon, Paul


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chapman, Sydney


Astor, John
Bowden, Andrew
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Bernard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylehone)
Bray, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Brewis, John
Clegg, Walter


Bainiel, Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cockeram, Eric


Batsford, Brian
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Coombs, Derek


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooper, A. E.


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Paul
Cordle, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bullus, Sir Eric
Critchley, Julian


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crowder, F. P.


Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Curran, Charles




Dalkeith, Earl of
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Farr, John
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacArthur, Ian
Simeons, Charles


Foster, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T, H. H.


Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fry, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Spence, John


Gibson-Watt, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madden, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Goorthart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Sutcliffe, John


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Green, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tebbit, Norman


Gumtner, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Hannam, John (Exeter)
More, Jasper
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Waddington, David


Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walden, David (Clitheroe)


Hay, John
Neave, Airey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wall, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
Walters, Dennis


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Warren, Kenneth


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Holt, Miss Mary
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, E.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peel, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodnutt, Mark


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Jopling, Michael

Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Kaberry, Sir Donald






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allen, Scholefield
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H. (Leigh)







Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Pardoe, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Horam, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Rt. Hn James
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pentland, Norman


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Rankin, John


Cocks, Michael(Bristol, S.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Richard, Ivor


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n(R'dnor)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roper, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G.(Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W.Ham, N.)
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt.Hn.G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tomney, Frank


Fernyhough, E./
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Wallace, George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert



Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John Watkins, David
Weitzman, David


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Wellbeloved, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Milian, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Golding, John
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitehead, Phillip


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E,)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ogden, Eric



Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hardy, Peter
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Harper, Joseph
Oram, Bert
Mr. James Hamilton.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley



Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oswald, Thomas

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Clause 87

INDUSTRIAL ACTION AGAINST EXTRANEOUS PARTIES

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire): I beg to move Amendment No. 800, in page 62, line 13, leave out subsection (2).

The Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are to take the following:
Amendment No. 462, in page 62, line 18, at end insert:
(2A) A company shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as an extraneous party in relation to an industrial dispute if—

(a) it is a company associated to a company which is an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute, and
(b) it has during the continuance of that dispute supplied goods or furnished services in lieu of goods or services which would.
but for that dispute, have been supplied or furnished by the company which is a party to that dispute.

Amendment No. 801, in page 62, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 463, in page 62, line 31, at end add:
(4) For the purposes of this section two companies shall be taken to be associated one to another if one is a subsidiary of the other, or both are subsidiaries of a third company.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: In the course of these debates, the Secretary of State has been described as the Sorcerer's Apprentice. I regard the Solicitor-General as the Tory Party's friendly insurance agent. He is very adept with words. He has a beguiling tongue and all the skill and ability required of an insurance agent to sell a death policy as a life policy. The Bill which he is promoting, particularly Clause 87, and I am here concerned with subsections (2) and (3), is the death policy for certain traditional and basic rights which the trade union movement regards as essential for the legitimate conduct of its affairs.
As with all insurance policies, the small print of the document must be read. I have said before that the clear intention of the Tory Party is to maim the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We will see whether it is nonsense. Some parts of the document

are fairly subtle. The right not to join a trade union seems on the surface to be reasonable, as does the establishment of the agency shop. Clause 61(3), which gives parliamentary licence to blackleg, appears to be on the surface to be reasonable. But on Clause 87(2) and (3) the fair and reasonable mask of the Tory Party starts to slip. This is where we get the more brutal application of the principle which the Tories have pursued since June of this year and before, and it is to damage, shackle, and inhibit the British trade union movement.
I do not doubt that in his friendly way over the Dispatch Box the Solicitor-General will say that that is not true and that the Government are being fair and reasonable and that their intention is to strengthen and not weaken the trade union movement. The test of their sincerity lies not in the imposition of policing duties on officials of that movement, but on the one test of whether in a situation of industrial conflict their actions strengthen the workers involved. I am a great believer in the litmus test in politics. Any situation can be dipped to see whether the litmus comes out red or blue, and if the Industrial Relations Bill is given the political litmus test, it is very "blue", and subsections (2) and (3) are the brightest hue of all.
We are bound to approach the Clause, as we approached all the others, with deep and profound suspicion. We believe that we are justified in that suspicion and that our accusations against the Tory Party of wanting to maim trade unions are fully justified and well founded. The Conservatives are primarily responsible for helping to create an environment of hostility against trade unions in British society. Anyone who doubts that should read reports of weekend gatherings of the Tory faithful.
We have witnessed the hysterical outburst by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the T.U.C's document on inflation which every sensible person in the country thinks was a fair assessment of the problem and gave some indication of how to get out of it. Then there were the recent speeches in the Enfield, West constituency where the Tory candidate spoke of what he termed the arrogance of the trade unions. And we need go no further than the Young Tories conference where they were foaming at the mouth wanting to take away supplementary benefits from


people who were on legitimate strike. Then there was the performance the Tory Party gave on the Consultative Document which gave less credence to the point of view of the T.U.C. than to the views of their friends in the B.M.A. Now we have the guillotine which is a contempt of working people.
We should also remember the conduct of the Conservative Party during the General Election. This is where I come to the interjection from one hon. Gentleman who shouted "Nonsense" at the beginning of my speech. If at the General Election Labour supporters had asked for details of the sort which are now to be found in Clause 87(3) and we had told them that the Tory Party meant to impose agreements on workers who do not want them the reply of the Tory Party would have been "You are far too suspicious. Our motives are pure and clear. We have no intention on those lines." That is what they would have said on 17th June. But they have not said it on this Bill in relation to Clauses 35 to 40. The clear pattern of Conservative strategy comes out clearly in Clauses 87(2) and (3). This is part of the Government's attack on the trade union movement, and is blatantly pro-employer.
The situation which will arise from the Bill is that workers are to be divided whereas employers are to be strengthened. Wedges are to be driven between workers on the shop floor since there are to be differences between registered and unregistered unions which will lead to the inability of one set of workers to help another. Even the rights of registered trade unions are to be impaired. Clause 87(2) and (3) will mean that the sympathetic strike will be ruled out. Indeed I suggest that any question of striking at all will for all practical purposes be ruled out. I shall come to that matter a little later.
Clause 87(3)(a) will strengthen employers and give them protection where they are already united and subsection (3)(c) encourages the unity for industrial political purposes where those employers are not bound under paragraph (a). We seem to be reaching the stage of the growth of a private political industrial fund organised by employers for employers which is to be used by them at their discretion without any restrictions being put on the use of that fund. Are

we to anticipate the situation in America since it would appear that American law is being brought into this country? By bringing in American law and practices this could lead to anti-trade union vigilantes financed by this fund to strike-break; and a new age of Pinkerton will arrive on the British industrial scene.

Mr. Gower: Mr. Gower rose——

Mr. Sillars: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later since I shall be mentioning him. The situation could arise in Clause 87(3)(a) in which an associated employer could be instrumental in imposing an agreement under Clauses 35 to 40 and it is to this practice we most object. Men who have been bound by an agreement to which they have never agreed could not strike justifiably because that would be regarded as an unfair practice and they would be forbidden to engage in any sympathetic action against an associated employer.
For a definition of "associated employer" we have to look forward to Clause 148(5) where we discover that the term will mean controlling employers, a situation which puts a different light on the words. The essential power of trade unions and the whole concept of trade union solidarity is being disrupted. The fiction is being introduced in Clause 87 that it will be the workers alone in an industrial dispute situation who would be regarded as being isolated and not part of a highly complex interrelated society and there will be no means for their colleagues to assist them. Then when the workers step into the real world situation and begin to ask their fellow workers for help in a dispute penalties will be imposed on the trade union.
7.45 p.m.
The Tory Party appears to me to want to have it both ways. The Government Front Bench spokesman quote Victor Feather in terms of the idea that one man's strike is another man's lay-off. Perhaps I could interpose the point of view that one man's strike can also be another man's protection. This is one of the reasons we in the unions do not get hysterical about strikes. In voicing their contributions from the Conservative benches, Tory Party spokesmen recognise the interdependence of our whole complex society. They then come to the fictitional part that one man's strike must


not be actively backed by another man. They deny to the worker the reality of having to live in the real world. This is the denial to the worker brought about by subsections (2) and (3) although there is no such denial for the employers. They are to be allowed to live in a world of reality. They will be able to get help, assistance, guidance, and people to join with them in decision-making and association in the dispute in terms of complete impunity.
We see from subsection (3,c) that employers by donating money to a fighting fund, which is what it will be, can play a key rôle in industrial disputes. They can inject cash into a dispute situation, they can buy labour and use it for strike-breaking. If that fund happens to be drained away because they decide to intervene in a dispute which they think is an essential matter of principle, in the long-term interests of employers they can evade Clause 87(3,c) as being directly or indirectly involved by writing an innocuous letter saying that, because of certain industrial disputes, the fund has drained away and they need another cash inflow. But they need not mention the dispute that is involved. We all know that in those terms a nod is as good as a wink. Again, they can get away with it with complete impunity.
The employers by the terms of the Clause are to be given room for manœuvre which is to be denied by the trades union movement. We all know that they can act secretly and discreetly as they always have done at the golf club, or in telephone calls, or in contacts with their interlocking directorships which we all read about, whereas the workers are always forced to be absolutely open about what they require to do. We are required to have mass meetings, but no private telephone calls. The employers will be able openly to taunt workers with the combined strength and the use of the political industrial fighting fund in a unity sanctified by Parliament in Clauses 85 to 87 of the Bill.
One of the ironies of the situation is that the political industrial fighting fund will come out of the pockets of the workers. The workers will be required by their efforts not only to put up the profits which will go in dividends or in

directors' salaries or in investments. The workers will also be required to provide the profits for an employers' fighting fund. We are duty bound to ask the Solicitor-General whether money in that fund will be included in the information which employers will be required to give to the trade unions under some of the less objectionable Clauses of the Bill.
We have objections to almost the whole of the Bill. They are not academic, as some hon. Members opposite have suggested. They are based on the experience of the creation of similar types of fund. I refer to the political funds of Aims of Industry and the Tory Party. One knows that that sort of fund is used to influence decisions. This Bill is almost part of the pay-off for the increased cash flow into the Tory Party coffers before 18th June. It is a pay-off for services rendered.
The Labour Party and the trade union movement put a great deal of credence in the need for solidarity. In our view, a sympathetic strike is an essential weapon for working people. It is one of our weapons in a very limited armoury in the industrial relations situation. We do not use it terribly frequently. We intend to keep it for the basic principal industrial dispute, where something crucial is at stake. We do not use the sympathetic strike in every strike situation; we use it very rarely. But when we employ it we do so because there is something absolutely essential at stake for the whole trade union movement.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said—and I paraphrase his words—that if anyone could show him that the Tory Party would take away the worker's right to strike he would join us in the Lobby. He will have to join us in the Lobby in our fight against Clause 87 because subsection (1)(b), for all practical purposes, takes away the worker's right to strike. The Solicitor-General may deny that, but I do not think he can because the wording of subsection (1)(b)—and that is the crucial provision—is such that the worker's right to strike is taken away. The Government were bound to notice this. If they noticed it, we must ask why no Government Amendment to the Clause has been tabled to clarify the situation if they did not want to take away the worker's right to strike.


Subsection (1) provides that any person—not a registered or unregistered trade union—who interferes
with the performance by another person of a contract
to which that other person is a party shall be indulging in an unfair industrial practice if the other person is an extraneous party. It does not refer to any person stopping the performance of work upon a contract. It merely refers to a person interfering with the performance of a person who is extraneous to the industrial dispute. This would appear to be a blanket provision against the worker's right to strike, whether he be in a registered or unregistered trade union.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that yesterday I were referring to Clause 114, which provides that there shall be no order or injunction to
compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work.

Mr. Sillars: There are different ways of skinning the industrial worker. If he engages in an unfair industrial practice there are other ways of getting him back to work without obviously ordering him to do so. The hon. Gentleman's excuse will not do and he will have to join us in the Lobby because all strikes interfere with someone's ability to perform a contract. What about the postmen? What about the railwaymen, if they decide to strike? Their strikes are bound to interfere with the performance of an extraneous party. A railwayman going on strike in Cumnock, in Ayrshire, could well interfere with the performance of a person extraneous to the industrial dispute. In Wolverhampton—well, we all know about people in some parts of Wolverhampton.
The Solicitor-General, if he agrees with my interpretation of the Clause, is bound to give us an assurance that he will undertake to amend it on Report.
I said that the solidarity of the Labour movement in a sympathetic strike situation is absolutely vital. The Labour Party rejects the philosophy not only of this Clause but of the Bill and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it, although we shall get an opportunity to repeal it later.

Mr. Nicholas Scott (Paddington, South): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sellars) on managing to stay in order while making remarks so irrelevant to the Clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North): That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Scott: None was intended. I was simply congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his skill to indulge in what appeared at times close to a general tirade against the Bill and yet speak to the Amendment.
The hon. Gentleman said that sympathetic strikes were rarely employed by the trade union movement. That may well be so. All that the Clause seeks to do is to ensure that it is not only rarely but fairly employed as a tactic, and I believe that Parliament has the right to lay down the circumstances which it regards as fair.
The hon. Gentleman also attempted to show that subsection (2)(b) affects the right of workpeople to strike and withdraws the provisions of Clause 114. But subsection (1)(b) refers not to people taking part in a strike but only to the steps set out in Clause 86(2)(a); that is,
calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike",
not taking part in a strike. Only those actions can conceivably come within Clause 87(1)(b).
But the effect of the Amendments would be, first to allow the calling of strikes and other industrial actions in support of primary strikes which are unfair. Surely that is a nonsense. I can understand hon. Members opposite disputing whether any industrial action should be unfair, but, having once said that certain industrial action is unfair, to say that there could be sympathetic strikes in support of it is a manifest nonsense.
Secondly, the Amendments would (allow industrial actions to be called against persons or firms not involved in the dispute. We can argue about precisely what "involved in a dispute" means and where one draws the line at the relationship between "actively involved" and "not actively involved". But the country widely recognises that so-called sympathetic strikes against firms which are totally uninvolved in the


primary dispute are unfair, and Parliament should make it clear that they are unfair.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), speaking in a previous debate, complained that those involved in industrial relations would be inhibited because they would feel that they had to have regard not only to industrial relations factors but to the background of the law. All I can say is that it may be a factor to bear in mind, but all of us in our lives, certainly those engaged in commerce, have always to bear in mind the background of the law. If society decides it is right that the law should make a dividing line between what is fair and what is unfair, of course that is right. Parliament will decide in this instance, and surely it is not too great a burden to ask those engaged in industrial relations to bear this provision in mind, as they do others.
I see no merit at all in these amendments, and I hope that they will be rejected by the Committee.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Kensington, North): I do not wish to make a speech which might be more appropriate to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but in view of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), I think it should be made clear just to what extent this Clause as it stands will interfere with the fundamental right to strike. I do not think hon. Members opposite have fully understood this. At least I hope they have not, for I am prepared to credit them with the belief that they are preserving some of the vestiges of the right to strike.
The Clause as it stands, in my view—and I am speaking with some experience as a lawyer engaged in industrial matters —would destroy the right to strike in almost all circumstances, notwithstanding that all the requisite notices have been given, and despite lengthy negotiations beforehand and regardless of the fact that the union is a registered union. The right of workers, and their unions, to withdraw their labour is effectively abolished by this Clause.
The Solicitor-General in the debate on the last Clause said that it would be neces-

sary in cases covered by the last Clause for the employer or person aggrieved, taking a claim for damages before the Industrial Court, to establish that the trade union knew of the specific contract which was involved. With respect to the Solicitor-General, this is completely contrary to the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Stratford v. Lindley (1964 —3 All E.R. 102). In that case it was held by Lord Reid (p. 106), after reciting the facts:
The respondents knew that barges were always returned promptly on the completion of the job for which they had been hired, and it must have been obvious to them that this was done under contracts between the appellants and the barge hirers. It was argued that there was no evidence that they were sufficiently aware of the terms of these contracts to know that their interference would involve breaches of these contracts; but I think that at this stage it is reasonable to infer that they did know that.
I submit that, as the law is laid down by the House of Lords in that case, it is not necessary to establish that the union responsible for breaking the contract actually knew of it, if it is reasonable to infer that the union knew of the contract. If that is the case, then every strike is going to involve an unfair industrial practice, because every strike, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire pointed out, results in other parties who are completely extraneous to the dispute breaking their contracts. I think that probably every business in the country has had to break some contract or another by reason of the postal dispute.
It is hypocritical for hon. Members opposite to say that the right to strike is being preserved, while at the same time they are declaring that every strike is unfair which involves any extraneous parties breaking their contracts, which the union ought reasonably to be capable of info ring existed. If that is so, then the right to strike is effectively abolished by this Clause. Every time there is a strike on a transport undertaking it involves breaches of contract between extraneous parties of contracts of which the union might well be held to have imputed knowledge, as in the decision in Stratford v. Lindley. Every time there is a strike on a building site between the employees of one contractor and his employers that strike will necessarily involve breaches of contract between other contractors on the site and the principal contractor and sub-contractors. Every time


there is a strike in any firm in industry which is supplying components to another factory which in turn has contracts to deliver goods reprocessed to yet another concern, there will be a breach of contract. It must be obvious that it is likely to be established successfully before the Industrial Court that the union, particularly when a national union is concerned, knew that goods from factory A go to factory B and from there reprocessed to factory C, and that a strike at factory A affects factory B and factory C, and will involve a breach of contract between B and C.
If this Clause is not substantially amended the right to strike is completely and effectively abolished. I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Solicitor-General an assurance that this Clause will be fundamentally amended, before we get to Report.

The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to intervene to curtail the debate but in order. I hope to clear the ground on which the discussion is taking place.
The intention of this Clause is to replace and clarify the present rather imprecise area in which the courts are developing the right to restrain certain kinds of strike which can be described as secondary boycotts. At the moment such strikes are actionable in the ordinary courts in some cases. The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) mentioned one example, Stratford v. Lindley. Johnson Matthey is a more recent case. The Torquay hotel case is another case. There is a growing number.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hear, hear. It started with me.

The Solicitor-General: That may be so. The hon. Member may have started it. I do not want to deny him his credit. That is something of which I was not necessarily aware.
This Clause is not intended to deny the right to strike or of secondary boycott but to redefine it. It has to be read alongside the provisions of Clause 118 which remove litigation about the inducement of breaches of contract from the ordinary courts.
So we are here concerned with the extent to which it should be an unfair

industrial practice for certain kinds of secondary strikes to be called—secondary boycotts; by which I mean a strike designed and intended to procure breach by an innocent extraneous third party to a commercial contract. The intention here is that this should be done not by reference any longer to the maze of case law to which the Donovan Report referred, but only when it can be shown that somebody has intentionally set about securing or organising industrial action in order to induce a breach by another to produce the non-performance of a commercial contract.
Beyond that, the right is only to be available, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) pointed out, when it can be said that the party who is being induced to break or not to perform a contract is extraneous, innocent, outside, not supporting the primary dispute.
The Committee will no doubt, want to discuss the merits or the demerits of that concept in whole or in part, whether we have tried to draw correctly this definition of the areas within which getting innocent parties to break their contracts should be fair or unfair—whether that has been properly drawn. That is a matter which the Committee will want to debate.
But there is one matter which both hon. Members opposite have already mentioned, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. Member for Kensington, North when they said that the wording, as it stands, of subsection (1)(b)—and I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kensington, North—about interfering with the performance by another person of a contract, goes, or may go, too widely. That is certainly a point which has some force in it, and I undertake here and now that those words will be looked at.
It is not our intention to do anything along the lines which the hon. Member for Kensington, North suggested, namely, to produce a situation in which the calling of strike action which results inevitably, accidentally and consequentially in the breaking of commercial contracts by the employer against whom the strike is called is proscribed, struck at or impedes by the Clause.


The intention is that the calling, procuring or organising of industrial action should be unfair within the concept of Clause 87(1) if the purpose or principal purpose of the person calling, procuring or organising that action is to induce another person to break—the existing words of Clause 87(1)(a)—or not to perform a contract to which that other person is a party. But there has to be a deliberate intention of the person who is possibly being proscribed by the Clause to produce the breach or non-performance of the contract; in other words the situation that arose in the Torquay hotel case where the intention of the party striking or the strike-calling party was to procure a breach of the oil delivery contracts or, at the very least, non-delivery of the oil under the contracts. The important thing is that it should be the intended result of the secondary unfair strike that someone innocent of the primary dispute should be obliged to break or not perform his contract.
That is clearly not the result of the wording as it now is, but I hope the Committee will accept from me that we do not want to waste our time in talking about a wrong form, we want to talk about the objective of the Clause.

Mr. Heffer: The words will have to be changed.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member says that we shall have to change the words, and I accept that. Because the matter ranges more widely than this, the question is how far we should seek to describe a party as extraneous. It is plainly right that we should debate the scope of Clause 87 (2) and (3) before we come back to the Committee with an Amendment embodying what I have tried to tell the Committee.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am obliged for the assurance which the Solicitor-General has given. I hope that the Amendment will make it clear that it is necessary to establish the intent to break a specific contract, and that it will not leave the situation as it was left with Stratford v. Lindley, which I hope he will agree is also unsatisfactory.

The Solicitor-General: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that

I go as far as he does in saying that Stratford v. Lindley or the other cases were wrong. The courts have said that it is not necessary for the person calling the strike to know the precise form and terms of a given contract if he plainly knows or must know of the existence of a contract of that kind. We do not want someone to be in jeopardy under the Clause if something which he knows not of or suspects not of is accidentally, consequentially broken. I undertake to look at the formulation of the knowledge point in the Stratford v. Lindley, the Torquay hotel and other cases to make certain that this is clearly met.

Mr. Gower: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that valuable promise. Will he study the wording so that it will comprehend a case where the almost inevitable result of the action would be a breach of contract?

8.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: That is the point which I was seeking to keep open, where the almost inevitable result is breach of contract where the strike-calling party must know or be taken 110 know. I shall of course have regard to the words drawn to my attention by the hon. Members for Barry (Mr. Gower) and Kensington, North. I am not seeking to mislead the Committee by saying that the undertaking I gave alters the substance of the intention of the Clause as hon. Members opposite are entitled to criticise it. I am merely trying to make clear, for the assistance of the Committee, the ground we are debating, which is the proposition that certain people wholly innocent of a primary industrial dispute are entitled not to be persuaded by industrial action to break contracts when they have done nothing whatsoever to intervene in or to support the party to the primary dispute. It is that which the Committee will want to debate, and I hope the Committee will forgive me for having intervened to deal with this narrow point.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am not clear whether the Solicitor-General has given way and, if he has, to whom he has given way.

The Solicitor-General: I am not seeking to curtail discussion. I will first give


way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery): I want to understand the Solicitor-General's point about the question raised by the hon. Member for Kensington, North. Is it the intention of the Government that if anybody is to be guilty under the Clause he must be shown to have a precise intention, and that it will not be left to such words as "in contemplation or furtherance" but will be a precise mens rea that is required?

The Solicitor-General: The reason for including the words "in contemplation or furtherance" is to confine the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to an industrial disputes matter, but the point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery put is an important one distinct from that. Hon. Members have already put several different shades and nuances on this. The precise intention, with precise knowledge to secure the breach of a given contract, is putting it at its highest, and the hon. and learned Member will know several cases in which it is plain that the person inducing the strike, so it has been held, knew or must have known of the existence of a particular contract although he may not have seen the document in writing. I do not think that one can be required to go as far as that, but all the points made, including the one made by the hon. and learned Member, will be borne in mind.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): I have much sympathy with the Solicitor-General's point about an innocent party being pushed to break a contract. Does he recognise the difference between using a strike to prevent a party entering into a contract and using a strike to break a contract? I will perhaps expand this if I say a word on my Amendment which comes in this group. There is a difference between preventing the carrying out of a contract and preventing a contract being entered into.

The Solicitor-General: That is a valid point, but the Clause as drawn does not seek to proscribe a strike which is designed to prevent a contract being entered into. It is designed to prevent a strike which is intended to secure the breach or non-performance of a subsisting contract. I do not think that any case law goes so

far as to make unfair the prevention of someone from entering into a contract, and it is not the Government's intention to go that far. It would be a completely new principle in this field of law, as in any other, to say that people should be unable to take action to prevent the creation of new contractual relationships, so the point of the hon. Member is already borne in mind in the Clause.
I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. McNamara: Can the——

The Deputy Chairman: Order, Mr. Hugh Jenkins.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): It would be——

Mr. MacNamara: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. Was the Solicitor-General giving way on a point of information or was he concluding his speech?

The Solicitor-General: I was trying to deal with such points as have been put to me. It seems that the hon. Member whom I identified as a questioner has identified himself as a would-be speaker.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Could I, with respect, ask you, Miss Harvie Anderson, to suggest to the Solicitor-General that he would be well advised to follow the usual custom when he is giving way, namely, to say that he is doing so and to whom he is giving way? That would help the Committee and the Chair.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sure that it was not the intention of the Solicitor-General to confuse the Committee, but I think that hon. Members would agree that in the event Mr. Hugh Jenkins has the floor.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am grateful to you, Miss Harvie Anderson, for giving me the opportunity of putting a question to the Solicitor-General which I feel must be prefaced by some explanation. I felt it improper to intervene with my question because the introduction that would be necessary before coming to the question would be so long that you would have said that it was not an intervention.


The Solicitor-General has said that he is dissatisfied with the Clause. I want to tell him that his dissatisfaction is only one-hundredth or possibly one-thousandth of the dissatisfaction felt with the Clause on this side of the Committee. I believe that my hon. Friends will feel that only the acceptance of the Amendment which seeks to dispose of this section entirely will be a satisfactory outcome and that no modification of the subsection will meet the case.
On the other hand it is a welcome sign that the Solicitor-General should have seen that what he is proposing could have serious consequences, going beyond even the Government's intentions. There are certain other circumstances not covered. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he proposes to modify the Clause so that people who are coincidentally affected are not brought within its range. What of the circumstances in which people, through trade union solidarity, are brought quite intentionally into a position of industrial dispute?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite underestimate the effects of taking one action upon such areas. They have seen already, and it was a surprise to many of them, that as the result of a previous Clause they have restricted the freedom of the Press. Similarly, as a result of this Clause—and I want to know whether the Amendment will cover it—traditional trade union solidarity will be seriously undermined.
I will give an example of what is a fairly frequent occurrence. Two or three times a year a situation arises in the film studios when technicians and actors are unpaid. The reason is the chaotic financing of the film industry, which has always been done on the basis that films are seldom made by the parent company. Generally speaking, even very major films are made by small companies created for the purpose with small capital, sometimes only £100.
The consequence of that is that in the event of a default in payment at the end of the film—unfortunately, this happens occasionally—the situation arises that the film is complete but payment is not made. In these circumstances it is not unusual for the Association of Cinematographic Technicians to give an

instruction to workers in a film laboratory not to continue with the processing of this film until after the other people have been paid. Consider the situation that arises here. Here we do not even have the same employer because the film is made by one employer and by this time is the property, probably, of the distributor.
Hon. Members opposite have not given due weight to the effect of trade union solidarity. The example I have given can no doubt be matched elsewhere in industry. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have other examples of situations in which workers, on a sheer fraternal basis, possibly having in mind some long-term advantages—or the avoidance of disadvantages—will take this kind of action. In this case these people take such action because it is the only action which can be taken in the circumstances to ensure that those who made the film are paid. Often payment is not made by the company which owes the money, but by the distributor who has purchased the film. This is because he has a product and he wants to sell it. If he does not pay there is the possibility that his film will never get on the market. What is the situation here?
Here is a trade union giving official instructions to a group of members not directly involved in the original dispute. In some instances the instructions will be given not even on behalf of the members of the same union but on behalf of members in other unions. A decision of this sort has been taken in the Federation of Film Unions and all the parties are a party to the decision. Who is responsible? Who can be proceeded against under the Bill, and what is the consequence of that action?
I would like the Solicitor-General, when he returns to the defence, to tell us in these circumstances who is caught by the Bill. Is it the workers as trade unionists or the trade union officials, and if it is, then of which union? Will he also say whether, once the changes to the Bill have been made, this action will be impossible to operate? If this is the case, then certainly in this industry he will create more trouble than he imagines because it will then be necessary for the trade unions to take alternative action which will have repercussions far more severe, not only for the unions but for the employers.


8.30 p.m.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may have wondered why the Federation of Film Producers decided to express its doubts and fears about the Bill. The reason is not that its members are not perhaps contributors to Conservative Party funds and that they do not approve of the Government's action in principle. The reason is that members of the federation are like very many other employers; and this is where disillusionment is beginning to set in among right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even they are beginning to doubt the validity of the Bill.
The general proposition has been put out to the Press by the Conservative Party that something should be done about the trade unions, and it has gained general assent. Hon. Members have made these broad statements in their election addresses, and they have gained general consent. However, when they come to spell out these matters in detail in Clauses like this one, they begin to see that, not only for employees but for employers, something is being eroded which is precious to the trade unions, to employers and to the country as a whole.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will say that no Amendment or alteration is necessary because he thinks that the whole Clause should be deleted.

Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham): At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that the whole of Clause 87 should be deleted. However, I think that it is one of the most fundamental Clauses in the Bill, in which very important issues are at stake.
The present position on strikes is set out clearly in paragraph 888 of the Donovan Report. That says:
At the present time, however, it is a familiar aspect of trade disputes that trade unions not only call out their members on strike but also endeavour to exert additional economic pressure on the employer in dispute by sealing off his sources of supply of materials or his outlet for sales, or both: and unless unlawful means are used to secure these ends, such action is permissible.
Surely we are now debating whether such action ought to be permissible.
I hope that I can be considered a reasonable man who can see both sides of a case. Earlier in this Committee I sup-

ported the Opposition on one Amendment. But, however hard I try, I cannot see any justification for sympathy strikes. If employees have a dispute with their management, clearly they are entitled to withdraw their labour. That is a formidable weapon, though it has been written down by hon. Gentlemen opposite who suggest that we are eroding the weapon. It is a weapon which can force employers into bankruptcy. Why should trade unions have an additional right to persuade the suppliers of materials to a factory to stop delivering their goods?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman has just read paragraph 888 of the Donovan Report. Perhaps he will refer to paragraph 900, which is the Commission's conclusion on the very passages to which he has referred. The last sentence reads, having regard to all that has gone before:
… we think that the second limb of section 3 should be retained as part of our Statute law.

Mr. Awdry: Those of use who have attended these debates realise that some hon. Members adopt some parts of Donovan—[Interruption.] That is a perfectly fair point. Neither side is using Donovan as its bible. I was trying to establish the facts, and I draw a different conclusion from Donovan.
Suppliers of materials to a factory who have no quarrel with the factory are persuaded, often with a good deal of threatening, to take action against the management of the factory. I believe that that is an abuse of power. It is an unpleasant weapon and it savours of bullying. It offends against the fundmental principles of justice, and it is a feaure of industrial action today which offends the general public more than any other.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made no attempt to justify the sympathy strike on its merits. I have always understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to promote the principles of justice. These principles, surely, involve the protection of the rights of the individuals and of companies and businesses.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the following proposition. As I see it, under


the Bill the Government are giving freedom to non-unionists on the same basis as it is given to unionists. In other words, they are given the right not to belong to a trade union, just as trade unionists have the right to belong to a union. In the circumstances, the Government are moving towards the position where blacklegs can go into a factory during an industrial dispute. In those circumstances, Clause 87 becomes very important to trade unionists. The only protection which trade unionists on strike will have against their own blacklegs is to try to prevent supplies going into the factory where the blacklegs are operating against probably the majority of the employees.

Mr. Awdry: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of developing this point.
It is wrong and contrary to the principles of justice that employees having a dispute with a particular firm should be allowed to try to persuade and threaten other people who have no dispute with that firm not to deliver supplies. It seems to be an evil.
I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not support me on this point, because they are keen to look after the rights of individuals. Yet these people and their businesses are threatened by outside forces.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose——

Mr. Awdry: —who have no contractual relationship with them. I claim that we should be thinking of protecting those people and their businesses.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point about the protection of the individual. May I change that round and consider the position of the person engaged in an industrial dispute who is in fact on strike and a third party enters into a relationship with the employer to supply goods or produce so that he can fulfil his contract. The other person then says to his mates who work in that other firm, "Withdraw your labour. If you do not, your employer will be interfering with my right to strike." At that moment he cannot fail to be interfering with the other employer, nor can he under the Bill.
There is no equal balance between the two.

Mr. Awdry: This is becoming an interesting philosophical discussion. My view is that the employee is entitled to withdraw his labour from the employer, but not to go beyond this and to bring pressure on other people supplying goods to break their contracts. I do not think that it would be helpful to take this philosophical discussion any further. The alternative to the Bill is a kind of jungle warfare in which the combatants in any dispute are no longer just the parties to it but anyone whom the unions can persuade to join in.
This may conform to the idea of solidarity, and we have heard a lot about solidarity. It may conform to the motto, "Let the workers unite." However, it does not lead to justice. In deciding how to frame the Clause we should be thinking of justice more than anything else. Therefore, I believe that the Clause is right.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman talks about the innocent outside employer. May I ask him to address himself to the Amendment, which is designed to deal with the Government's definition of an innocent outside employer. Included in that definition is an associated employer with close financial connections and even an employer contributing to an indemnity fund. Where is the hon. Gentleman's innocent employer in all that?

Mr. Awdry: The right hon. Lady may have a good point on detail. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire and other hon. Members who have spoken have gone much further than taking Committee points. They have talked about solidarity. They have raised the entire concept of sympathetic strikes. However, the right hon. Lady may have a point. If the Clause is not correctly drafted, my hon. and learned Friend will certainly look at it, because he said that he would. We are dealing with the main principle of sympathetic strikes. Hon. Members opposite have said that they would like to throw out the whole Clause, and it is that issue on which I have been speaking.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I should like to start on the


narrow point before broadening out to the issue of solidarity.
Clause 87(2) makes it quite clear that it is an unfair industrial practice for any person, in furthering an industrial dispute, to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract to which that other person is an "extraneous party." What do we mean by "extraneous party"? We find that
a person shall be regarded as an extraneous party … if he is not a party to that dispute, and he has not … taken any action in material support of a party to it.
What is "material support"? We find that if he is an associated employer it gains him exemption. We then have to ask: what is an associated employer? We have to turn many pages of the Bill to find that definition, but we eventually find that
For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer' shall be construed accordingly.
That is marvellous! There can be a strike in one firm, and under the provisions of the Bill it is not possible to bring pressure on the other firm because it is associated. Yet the two firms can be under common control and can have a common financial interest.
We can see the break-up of firms into associated companies, which would mean that the range of industrial action would become very narrow. That does not conjure up the image of an innocent party. One individual can own several companies. He may have a direct financial interest in every one of them. In one of those companies a dispute may break out. He decides to stand firm. He can afford to do so, because he may be supported by the receipts from 19 other plants. He will have those receipts and will be able to carry on the fight against the workers in one isolated factory. I shall refer to loyalty in a moment. That is the nub of the question of bringing about parity in bargaining situations.
Even under present regulations a worker who goes on strike will have to subsist on about £9 a week for himself, his wife and, perhaps, two kids. In that situation he is being asked to fight an employer who may be able to take advan-

tage of the returns from 19 factories. That is not equality of bargaining. It is precisely because of the existence of inequality of this sort that 19th century employers decided that trade unions should be granted some immunity before the law.
The issue before us is clear. This is an attempt completely to change the balance of power between the trade union and the employer. [Interruption.] It will not be brought to parity. How can we talk of parity when postmen are on the streets in receipt of £9 a week to support them in their struggle, while the Deputy Chairman of the Post Office continues to live in comfort and continues to say, "No"? Is that parity? Does parity exist in a situation when postmen receive £9 a week while the State puts up however many millions of pounds it likes in the fight against them? If it is, it is a strange parity. I know which side I would rather be on in a dispute of that sort.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower: Exactly the same parity obtained a few years ago under a Labour Government.

Mr. Golding: Mr. Golding Under the Labour Government many of us disputed the contention that the balance of power had shifted. This we know from our common experience. In view of these Clauses and the definition, it is clear that hon. Members opposite must ponder carefully before deciding not to support the Amendment.

The principle of loyalty has been mentioned. The traditional difference between the trade unions and the employers has been that whereas employers have had employers' associations we have had a trade union movement in which the doctrine of obligation has gained considerable ground. This is because we do not believe that in the industrial situation today there can be innocent third parties, because every wage claim and settlement has an implication for other settlements. Day by day and week by week the Government Front Bench tell us that each settlement has an implication for others.

It is very difficult to define who is and who is not a party to a dispute. The Clause would remove from trade unionists the freedom c: the worker to withdraw his labour if he does not like the use to which his products are being put. In the


trade union movement our relationship to work is not just that of a contract of doing work for a certain sum of money. We have to be concerned with the use of the products.

It is reasonable for men who object to the use to which the employers put their product to say to the employer, "We are stopping work." This is true in the present Post Office dispute. The failure to distribute oil to a Torquay hotel has been mentioned. There are telephone exchanges which will face serious difficulties in the near future because oil is not being supplied to them. I would defend the right of the Transport and General Workers' Union members who are refusing to deliver that oil, because they are constantly told that the outcome of the postmen's dispute will have an effect on the wages of all workers.

We are constantly being preached at that wage settlements are not arrived at in isolation. How can the Government preach that at one minute and talk about settlements being taken in isolation at another?

On the Post Office dispute in another respect, it is possible for trade unions to have a vital interest in the outcome of negotiations without their being parties to a particular dispute. The U.P.W. is in dispute with the Government over the pay of postmen, telephonists and counter clerks. The union I represent—the Post Office Engineering Union—is not a party to the contract, and it is not for us to say whether the percentage arrived at in negotiation is right or wrong, but we are concerned about the principles being settled during the dispute. The Post Office says that what matters is not the percentage but the principles of pay.

The Post Office thus widens the interest in the dispute away from the U.P.W. to all the unions concerned in the Post Office, because they have a direct interest in the principles of pay established. Our interests are vitally bound up in the outcome of the dispute.

The Government are repeating the Post Office assertion that the union will not go to arbitration. Other unions would be upset if the principles of pay for the entire Post Office staff were settled by arbitration. Moreover, it is not correct to make the broad claim that the U.P.W.

agreed to go to arbitration. All the Post Office unions agreed to go into the public Corporation on certain understandings set out in a White Paper, including an assurance that the Government would expect of the employer that industrial relations would be even better in the public Corporation than they had been in the old Post Office. We went in on that undertaking. The unions signed an agreement. There has been argument about whether it is ambiguous.

No union has been to arbitration about the principles of settling pay. Those principles have been established, and the arbitration court has been asked only to decide what percentage awards were just and desirable within the context of agreed principles of settling pay.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Have any of the unions been to mediation?

Mr. Golding: No, because, first, in the past there were agreed principles for settling pay which had been determined by the Tomlin and Priestley Commissions after years of study and work. There was no need to go to a mediator; neither side had said unilaterally that it was changing the principles of settling pay. Second, an arbitration court had been established.
To return to the main theme, it is difficult to determine who is a party to an agreement. It would be much fairer, in my view, if two additional points were made: first, that no employer be given exemption if he has either financial or physical control; and, second, that trade unions which have a direct interest in the outcome of negotiations should themselves be entitled to take action.
The Government's policy is to relate one wage claim to the next—X minus 1, X minus 2, and X minus 3. Given that policy, each union in the public sector must have an interest in the settlement of any dispute. If the Government intend to create a situation in which a certain formula is to be applied, and if there is to be parity of bargaining between workers and employers, the workers must be free to act in any dispute which they think will vitally affect their interests.

Mr. Awdry: The logic of that is that any pay dispute could lead to a general strike. Everyone is interested in the public sector, says the hon. Gentleman, so if there is a pay dispute it is fair enough


for all the unions to join in and call a strike. That cannot be right.

Mr. Golding: Hon. Members opposite are leading me into difficulty, Miss Harvie Anderson, tempting me into philosophical arguments which you would rule out of order. There is no logic in what the hon. Gentleman says. If 100 per cent. of workers were in the public sector, that would be right, but, of course, it is not so. The Post Office Engineering Union has not the same interest in the Ford dispute. We know that, whatever the productivity at Ford Motor Company, however bad the cars which it produces—it has just sold me a bad one—the workers will get their increases because they are in the private sector and because they are in a more powerful position—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to restrict this debate, as all hon. Members who have read the Amendments will recognise, but I hope that, having been allowed the latitude which is necessary for our present purpose, hon. Members will not take overmuch advantage. We have been straying very far in the last few minutes. I appreciate that the hon. Member who has the Floor thinks that he was led astray by an intervention, but, though he is not yet strictly out of order, he is very near it. I hope that he will come back more closely to the Amendments.

Mr. Golding: I accept your rebuke at once, Miss Harvie Anderson. I saw the danger when the hon. Gentleman rose to intervene. It is difficult to remain within order on these matters.
Our objection to the Clause as it stands is of vital importance, vital to the essence of the Bill. I do not believe that the Bill is directed so much to the removal of strikes, or unofficial strikes, as to the transfer of power from shop floor to managers and the professional class. Clause 87, I believe, is one key to the Government's strategy in this respect. They are trying to do what managers traditionally have done; that is, divide the working class, take them section by section, and then, having done that, deal with the workers in weak groups, in that way gaining the domination which traditionally they have been able to hold because of their ownership of economic power.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

9.0 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is very interesting that men who are equally alert and equally sincere look at the same thing and come to such diametrically opposite views. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggested that the Bill was moving away from the parity of bargaining strength. I believe that it brings us nearer real parity than we have been for half a century. The words of the Bill substantiate my point of view, but the lion. Gentleman is just as sincere and sees it differently.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who has chastised her hon. Friends in a Friendly way for not running the Committee as it should be run. She is right, and I do not give way to the hon. Gentleman because of this question of procedure. We discuss the principle on Second Reading and to some extent again on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". At this stage we should not be on different sides. The principle has been settled, and now our job, within the general scheme that we have either accepted or have had foisted upon us, is to try to make the Bill as good as we can. The right hon. Lady was trying to keep her hon. Friends within this stage, and I want to try to keep within it. If we do, the Parliamentary Committee system is pretty good and does a good job.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others who follow him will confine themselves to this job, being good Committee men. I want to do so. It is obvious that we shall get the Bill on the Statute Book, but no one suggests that the words first printed are perfect. That is why we share minds and experiences within the general framework of the Bill to make it as good and acceptable as possible.
I have a complaint against the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). He used the very example that I wanted to use. It is well founded, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General


will heed it. My Amendment No. 462, which I shall not move—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On further consideration, I do not think that the words I put down are good——

An Hon. Member: They are excellent.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the light of the explanation given by my hon. and learned Friend, it would not be appropriate to ask him to accept those words.
Now I shall be a good Committee man. I want my hon. and learned Friend to try before the Report stage to find better words than mine to face up to the situation put by the hon. Member for Putney. In the film industry a £100 company can hire technicians and artists and fail to pay them, or owe them part of their payment. Being a small company with nothing to lose, it can go into liquidation, leaving those technicians and artists high and dry. The company has the commodity in the can. It has the film that the technicians and artists have created. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can find words to allow for the processors of the film not turning it into a saleable commodity until the company has settled its debts to the technicians and artists. He would not be weakening the general appeal of the Bill, and he would be plugging up a little hole which is disadvantageous and unfair.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I hope that I am setting an example of brevity that others will follow. When a Committee is dealing with a matter like this, sugar is quite a potent weapon. I say to hon. Members opposite; use a bit of sugar instead of all that vinegar. We have a Solicitor-General answering these debates who is sincere, knows his job and wants to make this a good Bill. Hon. Members should stop being so antagonistic about it. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was right when he said that the Opposition were overreacting. Hon. Members opposite have lost the principle. The Bill is going to be put on the Statute Book. Let them help make it a better Bill by being good Committee men.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. Will you protect the Committee

from this humbug and direct the hon. Gentleman back to the Clause?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Mr, Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Sir Alfred. I beg to give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek to move Amendment No. 462, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendment has not been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means for a vote.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. It has been selected.

The Temporary Chairman: It has been selected for discussion, not to be moved.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. The Amendment is on the Notice Paper, and I understood that if hon. Members wish to do so an Amendment on the Notice Paper can be moved.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Sir Alfred. Is it not the case that one can move an Amendment only if one has attached one's name to it?

The Temporary Chairman: It is correct that an Amendment which appears on the Notice Paper in Committee can be moved by any hon. Member. But it can be moved only with the permission of the Chairman, and this Amendment has not been selected to be moved.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has demonstrated what I call a saccharine paternalism towards the Committee, and it is to be hoped that in future when he addresses us he will take his own advice to heart.
I agree broadly with the principle stated by the Solicitor-General on this Clause, because there are dangers—and indeed, there have been examples—of great injustices being caused to independent and entirely innocent parties in disputes because it is thought that they should be involved so as to broaden the industrial front. They often suffer severely in the process. I am entirely


with the Solicitor-General in desiring to give protection to that kind of person. I also agree with him that there are a number of decided cases—a labyrinth of cases—and that it would be a good thing if a clear position were to be enunciated and an end put to the disputes which arise from these causes.
Having said that, I am not at all convinced that the Clause is not drawn far too broadly. For example, it seems to me that the very concept of "extraneous party" is difficult to accept. If one is in a dispute, one is a party to a dispute. The very words "extraneous party" are self-contradictory. A person or association is either a party to the dispute or extraneous to the dispute.
Subsections (2) and (3) are very complicated. It would have been better for the unions if they had not existed and Clause 87(1) had read as it does but with the substitution of the words, "other person is a party or is not a party in relation to that industrial dispute". If the wording were in that form, it would be much better than it is now. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to have in mind a kind of protection to enable parties who are perhaps associated with companies involved in a dispute not to be drawn in. This is a crucial Clause and there is no doubt as to its wide ambit as drawn.
If there is an industry-wide dispute in which some firms are involved in association while producing the same kind of goods, but not in association with other companies, and there are union workers employed in each, the union workers employed in a company not associated with the others would be in breach if they took strike action. It is difficult to see how the Clause as drawn cannot work considerable injustice.
I say "as drawn", but we can consider the Clause only as drawn. The history of Parliament shows how the intentions of any Government are different from court decisions later, when the words enacted by Parliament are interpreted, and one sees how often right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members and others on the Government Front Bench, of whatever party, have been found to be wrong.
The words of the Clause are far too wide, and I should support an Amend-

ment for the deletion of subsection (2), because the Clause does not carry out the intention as stated by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given an absolute undertaking about one matter, and, as I understand his present mood, he is prepared to look again at the whole Clause with a view to introducing different words to limit the intention he has stated. I do not think that any fair-minded person could dispute the intention he has delimited, but the words of the Clause, which is all the Committee has to consider, are so wide as to be likely to wreak injustice.

The Solicitor-General: The Committee is plainly anxious to move to the "Clause stand part" debate, and I should like to deal more generally with the Amendments.
I begin by taking up a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He suggested that the industry-wide strike on terms and conditions of employment might be caught automatically by the Clause. Quite apart from what I have been looking at, the structure of the Clause, I suggest that it is not likely or possible that that would happen, because the Clause is not aimed at anyone who induces breaches of contract of employment.
If a sympathy strike throughout an industry takes place because of the claim by the workers in one part of it, a fair strike about their terms and conditions of employment, and the other workers throughout the industry join in, someone inducing them to break their contract of employment would not come within the Clause. Only if the person inducing the sympathetic strikers throughout the industry-wide strike were doing so with a view to securing breaches of contract other than contracts of employment would the Clause begin to bite.
I take the point that the Clause as drafted might inadvertently catch that, and that is why I have undertaken to look at it again, but it is certainly not the intention to prescribe calling or inducing strikes by other people throughout an industry simply because that involves them in breaking their contracts of employment; it is only if the secondary strikes are specifically directed to bringing about a breach of contract other than a contract of employment, and that is


what the Clause is directed at. The position does not arise if the respondent can show that the party whose contract is being broken is not extraneous to but is supporting the original strike.
9.15 p.m.
To deal with some of the particular points and examples which have been put to me, the important point to emphasise is that subsection (3) is saying that a person shall not be regarded as having taken supporting action by reason only that he is an associated employer, or member, of the same employers' organisation, and so on. It is not asserting that associated employers are automatically to be regarded as extraneous. All that is asserted is that the mere fact of association and common membership of an employers' association does not in itself establish that he is taking materially supporting action. Of course, a member of the same federation or the same group of employers would immediately become a supporting party if taking action in support of the employer primarily struck against. It is here we try to draw the line between the wholly innocent party away from a dispute altogether and people who are reasonably and legitimately involved.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) raised the question of the relationship between the Post Office Engineering Union and the U.P.W. and the question of how far any supporting action might or might not be fair under the Bill. That, again, would not be affected by this provision. We start off with a fair primary strike by the U.P.W. about its new wage bargain, and if anyone sought to persuade the members of the P.O.E.W. to strike in support of that, that persuasion would be directed not to particular breaches of particular contracts by the Post Office but to persuading it to undertake a sympathy strike in support of the fair primary strike. There will be no question of that being caught by this Clause or in any other way.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—and my hon. Friend the Member Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), though on a slightly different tack, but in general along the same lines—put an example to me of a situation which is not unfamiliar in the motion picture industry. The answer is that if under the present law officials of A.C.T.A.T. were to persuade

the work people of the film processing company to break their contracts of employment with a view to procuring a breach by the film processing company of its processing contract, then, even with the law as it now stands, and subject to the way in which they did it and the way in which the particular facts fitted in with the maze described in the Donovan Report, the procurement by union officials of a breach of the processing contract could now quite probably be actionable and restrainable under the present law.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In theory.

The Solicitor-General: In theory. It is a situation in respect of which actions have been brought, though not, so far as I know, in that particular situation.
The same could well be true of Clause 87(3) as drafted. The present position is that the people calling such a strike as individuals, though not the union, could be found liable under the present law. Under Clause 87 as drafted the people calling the strike could not be found liable but the union could be. It is difficult to say whether the affected party would or should be regarded as an extraneous party.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Putney for raising that example, which illustrates the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, of defining the extent to which we reserve the balance of the present law which gives some protection to the innocent, outside party and the extent to which we modify it so as to legitimise fair strikes which are in pursuit of a fair primary objective. The example given by the hon. Member is one to add to the many others which we have considered and at which we shall look in the course of the reconsideration of this Clause.
I invite the Committee to reject the Amendments, which go to the heart of the Clause, and to support the principle of the Clause on the basis that there is a clear distinction between the legitimate use of sympathetic supporting strike action and the use which goes further than can be justified in the complex state of modern society and involves innocent people who should not be involved in the dispute.

Mrs. Castle: As the Solicitor-General said, we are all anxious to get on to the


Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, because my hon. Friends have been in great difficulty in having to discuss the vital principles associated with the Clause in the context of Amendments of limited scope. We have had this difficulty throughout our discussions on the Bill. We have all found it quite impossible, if we wanted to do so, which we certainly do not, to do what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) suggested, namely, to sit down together and improve the details of the Bill before we have had a chance to bring home to the Solicitor-General the fact that the details of the Bill are a reflection of a basically wrong principle. This has been our problem. It is not our fault that our Amendment dealing with the principle was not called. We are therefore merely discussing one aspect of the Clause.
The hon. Member for Peterborough, who pays us rather hurried visits from wherever it is he comes from and goes back again, having lectured us about how naughty we were to attack the Clause and how we should be sitting down with him to try to improve its detail, went on to quote examples of how bad the Clause was in its effect. I could not help feeling that circumstances alter cases. In discussing a Clause like this we can get involved in terrible abstractions and easily lose our way unless we are careful. It is interesting to note how, when any of us has had personal experience, the abstractions which sound so plausible in the mouth of the Solicitor-General turn out to be very different animals when aplied to concrete situations. That is the truth about some of the abstractions which we have heard from the Solicitor-General on these two Amendments.
The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that valid points of detailed criticism had been made from this side of the Committee and went on to say that he would look into some of the wording of the Clause, thus proving what was clear, I should have thought, to anybody listening to this debate, that if the Clause was intended to clarify the obscurities of the law on the secondary boycott—obscurities of which the Donovan Report complained—it had failed dismally. All the Solicitor-General has managed to do is to make the legal situation still more

obscure and still more of a minefield for any trade unionist trying to thread his way through it.
That is why the Donovan Report said that the only way to deal with this situation was to clarify the law. The Donovan Report said that the principle of borrowed strength was not only a traditional principle of industrial relations but a hallowed principle by any standards responding to natural human needs and the needs of those trying to organise for certain ends. Donovan wanted the law clarified to make the path forward more sure for trade unionists. What the Solicitor-General is doing by this Clause, as he has made clear in his remarks to us, is attempting to clarify the law by increasing the restrictions on trade unions, and that is why we have this phony distinction which is put before us of the difference between an "innocent" employer caught up in the wicked machinations of trade unions and the employer who may be said to have a real interest in the strike though not an immediate and direct party to it.
So we come to this definition of the extraneous employer who, in the words of the Solicitor-General, is an innocent employer and ought therefore to be left alone. What the Clause as it now stands says is that an extraneous party is an employer who is

"(a) … not a party to that dispute, and
(b) has not … taken any action in material support"

of it.
First and foremost, of course, this adds nothing to the relief of obscurity, because it is certainly not easy to define the concept of who is and who is not a party to the dispute. We had some exchanges about that earlier in connection with the dockyards, and I hope my hon. Friends will be following this up in the wider discussion on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
When we turn to the other limb of this part of the Clause, namely, what constitutes material support, we are entering a very wide field indeed, for subsection (2)(b) says that if an employer is to be considered extraneous and therefore innocent he must not have given material support
in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute".


I am sure that we on this side are still totally unsatisfied that this does not mean that the ordinary supplier of goods who knows that his supplies are helping to break a strike does not then become an extraneous or an innocent party, because if that is so, if it is true that the ordinary supplier of goods who knows that his supplies are helping to break a strike becomes an innocent party so that there may be no action against him by his own workers, then this eliminates almost every supporting employer. Every supporting employer becomes extraneous. The extension of this meaning is very wide indeed, and we believe that it was intended to be wide. We believe that the purpose of these words is really to compound the apparent obscurity of the law instead of clearing it up, and to make darn sure that there will be very few guilty employers indeed under these secondary boycott provisions and, therefore, very few employers against whom it will be legal to take secondary boycott action.
Then the Government go even further —in subsection (3). As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) pointed out, the Government go out of their way to ensure that whole groups of employers whom the ordinary layman would consider certainly to have an interest in and an influence upon a strike are rendered immune from sympathetic action.
9.30 p.m.
The Solicitor-General gave an interesting explanation of the reference to the associated employer in subsection (3)(a). It is remarkable that he should say that an associated employer should be immune. An associated employer may have financial, commercial and possibly negotiating and bargaining links with the employer who is involved in the original strike. It is contrary to all commonsense that an associated employer should be called an innocent party. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) nodding his head—

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge): I cannot extend my area of agreement with the right hon. Lady over the entire range of what she is saying, but on this point I am disturbed, and I should like it to register with the Solicitor-General.

Mrs. Castle: We have had an explanation from the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was challenged on this by several of my hon. Friends. He said that he was merely saying that a person shall not be regarded as having taken the action mentioned by reason only that he is an associated employer, and he shall not be regarded as having given material support by reason only that he is an associated employer. We say that an associated employer must be deemed to be guilty in the Solicitor-General's sense, namely the opposite of innocent or extraneous, because he is associated. Why is this reference to the associated employer spelt out in subsection (3)? The Solicitor-General said that all he was saying was that he shall not automatically be regarded as guilty, not extraneous. To that we reply, why not automatically assume that there is a connection?
I do not use "guilty" in an emotive sense. It is the Solicitor-General who uses these emotive terms about people being innocent or guilty employers. It is an absurd concept, because the opposite of innocence is guilt. There is no guilt in being an associated employer and having an interest in whether a strike succeeds or is broken. In commercial terms it is a straight piece of negotiation. The Solicitor-General loves wheeling out these moving phrases which make the general public feel that the Government are on the side of God.

Mr. Hooson: I want to reinforce the right hon. Lady's point. I had not noticed until now that "associated employer" is defined for the purpose of the Bill in Clause 148(5) and has a very narrow meaning indeed.

Mrs. Castle: I was coming to that point.
Then the Government go out of their way in the interpretation Clause to define the associated employer in subsection (5). That definition has already been read by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). It says clearly that an associated company is one that has a linked control. It cannot possibly be extraneous. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has just pointed out to me that the definition of associated company in this Bill is the definition of associated employment which we put into the Equal Pay Act.


Why did we do that? We did that to say that a woman shall be given equal treatment with men in the same employment and then we went on to define the same employment as being the same employment by men employed by her employer or any associated employer because there is a common interest and responsibility and a common link.
The Government are standing the whole concept on its head. They are saying that the very fact that there is this kind of link, commercial, financial, negotiating and all the rest, does not automatically mean that the employer is guilty. If it does not mean that what does it mean? Does it mean that he is extraneous? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has to put it positively, we cannot be left in the air with this negative. Trade unionists and workers can be penalised by law once the Bill is passed and they have a right to have it put the positive way round, not the double negative way. If it does not automatically follow that because an employer is associated he is guilty, and therefore the action against him is legal, when will the action against him be illegal? Tell us that. Tell the trade union movement. It is intolerable to add to the obscurity of the present law. This is a classic example of the double talk and double meanings which we are getting from the Government together with all of the double dangers.
Secondly, says the Solicitor-General, the mere membership of an employer's organisation does not destroy the innocent status of the secondary employer. However, that organisation may have decided to use its collective strength to resist strikes. Thirdly, subsection (3) spells it out, an employers' organisation or any group of employers may actually set up a strike indemnity fund, as the Engineering Employers Federation has done, to compensate any one of its members against loss which they may incur in resisting strikes generally.
That is to become legal under the Bill. The fact that an employer is contributing to a common indemnity fund to resist strikes does not deprive him of his innocence under the Clause. It is an intoler-

able example of the incompatibility between what the Government do and say. No wonder they have been accused of hypocrisy by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I think that his language was remarkably restrained in view of the enormity of this Measure. I say to the Solicitor-General, "Come on, let's be adult, let's play it straight with one another". Will he not admit that Clause 87(3)(c) was put into the Bill at the specific request of the Engineering Employers Federation? The Federation has been running this indemnity fund; it can hardly come before any common sense audience and claim to be entirely innocent in the situation when it has its indemnity fund as part and parcel of its apparatus for fighting strikes. But if a trade union tries to use borrowed strength against the collective strength of the Federation, the Solicitor-General will have it up and see that it suffers the penalties of this law.

The Committee may be interested to know that the final crux of the situation is that contributions to strike indemnity funds are probably allowable for tax purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster asked a pertinent Question about this on 12th February. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
… if a company's contributions to a strike indemnity fund of an employers' association are allowable for tax purposes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied:
This would depend on the constitution of the association and the rules governing the indemnity fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 287.]

There is an admission that these indemnity funds can even be financed by the taxes of the strikers whom they are out to penalise. How far can we go in the enormities of this Clause?

Having listened to the Solicitor-General's pathetic travesty of an argument, I ask the Committee seriously to back this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Committee divided: Ayes 241, Noes 276.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[9.42 p.m.]


Abse, Leo
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ashton, Joe


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Atkinson, Norman


Allen, Scholefield
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.




Barnes, Michael
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hattersley, Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pavitt, Laurie


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchan, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brynmor
Rankin, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Joncs, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Roper, John


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cronin, John
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.
Torney, Tom


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, Tom
McNamara, J. Kevin
Varley, Eric C.


English, Michael
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright. Edwin


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Weltzman, David


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milian, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. John Golding.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Adley, Robert
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Awdry, Daniel


Alison, Mickael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Humphrey
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)







Balniel, Lord
Grieve, Percy
More, Jasper


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Turton
Grylis, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bell, Ronald
Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Blaker, Peter
Hannan, John (Exeter)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Normanton, Tom


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Boscawen, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn, John
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bray, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brewis, John
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Peel, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Channon, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Coombs, Derek
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Knox, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Antony
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'h'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mai.-Gen. Jack
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simeone, Charles




Sinclair, Sir George


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dixon, Piers
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Soref, Harold


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longden, Gilbert
Spence John


Drayson, C. B.
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Ian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stainton, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stokes, John


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sutcliffe, John


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fidler, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnie, John E.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek







Wall, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry
Wylie, Rt. Hn. R.


Walters, Dennis
Wilkinson, John
Younger, Hn, George


Ward, Dame Irene
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Warren, Kenneth
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. As you are aware, Sir Alfred, during the course of a debate fresh points sometimes arise as a result of which it is decided that it would help generally if a vote were taken on a subsidiary Amendment. I submit for your consideration that such a fresh point has arisen in relation to Amendment No. 462, in the name of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). In the course of our discussion it was clearly shown that that Amendment raised issues not covered by the Amendment that was moved. It deals with a separate issue, which ought to be decided separately by the Committee. You have been here throughout the discussion, Sir Alfred, and you will doubtless recognise that a fresh point was raised. In those circumstances I beg to ask leave formally to move Amendment No. 462 for a Division.

The Temporary Chairman: Let me say at once that I cannot grant permission for Amendment No. 462 to be moved. Very careful consideration of all the Amendments has been given by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He has made a selection, and I do not have the power to vary it.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friends and I wish to debate this Clause in a little more detail than we have been able to do up to now. A great deal of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) covers many of the arguments that we would deploy. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend; the contribution that she has made has emphasised precisely how difficult it is for the layman to get to grips with the Bill and to understand it. We shall want some very clear answers from the Solicitor-General in relation to the points made by my right hon. Friend.
I shall have to be a little careful about what I say during the debate, as I seem to have run into a little local difficulty on a couple of occasions today.

I will do my best to keep strictly in order.
We regard not only the Clause but the whole of Part V as one of the most pernicious parts of the Bill as far as it operates against the trade union movement. The Clause is probably the most pernicious Clause of a Bill which is full of pernicious Clauses. We shall make it clear during the next two or three hours that this part of the Bill and especially this Clause ought to be withdrawn. I am very interested to note that even the representative of the Liberal Party also appealed to the Solicitor-General to withdraw this part of the Bill.
In the course of an earlier brief speech, the Solicitor-General made it absolutely clear that whereas Clauses 85 and 86 could well apply to unregistered trade unions and to unofficial strikers—although there was argument about interpretation—nevertheless this Clause, to use his words, is directed in a different way and it affects strikes whether they are official or unofficial, whether the strike began as a so-called fair strike or as an unfair industrial practice. This is the basic point on the Clause.
The Roberts Arundel dispute was mentioned both yesterday and today. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that that dispute would be covered by the fact that within the Bill the union could apply for recognition and the American employer would be forced to grant it. It may well be that an employer could be forced to grant recognition under the Bill. But, having been forced to accept recognition of the trade union, an employer could then carry out a series of actions which could lead to the workers taking what hon. Members on the other side of the Committee would regard as a fair action and calling an official dispute at that firm. We should remember the type of management with which we would be dealing. It is one that has made it perfectly clear that it really objects to the principle of trade unions. But it has been forced into a position of having to accept a trade union. Nevertheless, it will then conduct


the dispute in every possible way to ensure the defeat of the trade union.
10.0 p.m.
Under the Bill the trade union would face an immediate problem. A firm which was supplying goods, perhaps on a long-term contract, could well argue that it had no particular association with the dispute but was merely supplying on the basis of a long-term contract entered into years before when the firm was a British firm.
In those circumstances, under this Part of the Bill, the trade union could not ask the workers in the factories supplying the goods to take action against the supplier.

Mr. David Mitchell: indicated assent.

Mr. Awdry: indicated assent.

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Gentlemen are agreeing, yet hon. Members opposite deny the argument adduced by many of my hon. Friends to the effect that the Clause tilts the balance entirely in the employer's favour. If there can be no right to appeal to trade unionists in supplying factories, the employer starts off with a 100 per cent. advantage over the union. This is not parity.

Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that fundamentally the Roberts Arundel strike was not about trades union recognition. It was about bad management. It lasted two years and was resolved only by the union eventually taking three actions—trying to prevent the supply of goods, blacking all sub-contract work in the area, where ever it was being done, and imposing a levy on members throughout the district concerned? All three actions would be illegal under the Clause.

Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A study of this dispute shows that for the trade union to be able to defeat this anti-trade union firm it was necessary for pickets to follow certain lorries at night to discover where the goods were coming from and then to appeal to the workers in those factories not to allow the goods to be sent to Roberts Arundel. The trade union had to go further and appeal to trade unionists in Europe. Solidarity on this national

and international scale was necessary to defeat this anti-trade union firm.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the need for solidarity and of the way in which solidarity brought about an end to the Roberts Arundel dispute. In that case, why was not the union able to obtain solidarity in the works? If it had succeeded in achieving that, it would not have needed to take any further action, because no firm can operate without labour?

Mr. Heffer: To use an old cliché, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because it leads me on to my next point.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said that he could not understand why we felt so strongly on this matter. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely trying to understand our point of view, as I hope that we are trying to understand his. I would not say that of all hon. Members opposite, but I believe that the hon. Member for Chippenham is genuinely trying to understand our point of view.
In reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), the firm continued with a very small group of workers, all of whom were non-trade unionists. Many of them were paid over the union rates. This rate was paid to get them there for the time being; and then, when the union was destroyed, they would not be paid the official union rates.
The Government say that workers should have a legally protected right not to join a trade union. Let us suppose that a group of these workers, not trade unionists, remained at work and other workers took action because they were not trade unionists. First, that would be an unfair industrial practice, and, second, they would be caught under this Clause at a later stage. So there are two bites at the cherry. Obviously, we cannot accept that.
Now, the question of solidarity. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke about employers' contributions to an indemnity fund. Indemnity funds are known particularly in the engineering industry, but they are not


confined to engineering. Many employers' associations have them. An indemnity fund is for the purpose of assisting other members who may be involved in a trade dispute or for other reasons regarded as entitled to support.
Apparently, it is perfectly all right for employers to assist one another and to show solidarity—they are not caught under the Bill—but it is no good the workers thinking that they may show solidarity and support one another through sympathetic action. We are told that the balance is not tipped in favour of the employers and the system is perfectly fair. Yet employers may assist one another and, what is more, it is all right if they are members of the same association.
Clause 148(5) means that there could be a number of associated companies with direct financial interests in one another, but under separate forms of management, which could assist one another; yet if the workers decide to take sympathetic action in relation to those managements, they would be in trouble under the Bill. Do hon. Members honestly think that this is fair and not intended to weaken the trade union movement? Of course it is not. I have never seen anything more blatant. We could not possibly accept it.
So often in these debates, I have had to promise my hon. Friends that I would make a short speech so that as many others could take part, and I have done the same tonight, but I wish, before I close, to draw attention to one or two other aspects of the Clause. I take, first, the part which directly relates to the dispute which took place between the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Torquay hotel.
Lord Denning gave this judgment on that occasion:
The time has come when the principle
—of liability in common law—
extends to a case where the third person ate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach.
So we have a new concept. It does not even have to cause a breach to be interference with the execution of a contract. He added that such interference
extends to a case where the third person prevents or hinders a party from performing his contract.

In the Clause we find the words:
…
to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract (not being a contract of employment) to which that other person is a party,
It is clear that hon. Members opposite have lifted the judgment of Lord Denning and put it into the Clause. I understand from my legal friends that that is a novel situation in the law. If it is not, I am certain that lawyers on the other side of the Committee will be only too keen to put me right.
This part of the Bill, like most of the Bill, is based upon the Taft-Hartley Act. There is no question about that. I have a copy of that Act. Section 8(b)(4), dealing with this matter, is headed,
Unfair labour practices".
That Section is taken out almost word for word, though put in a different way—[Interruption.] The words can be the same, but they can be rearranged. If hon. Members opposite do not know that, they do not know anything. The Clause comes straight out of the Taft-Hartley Act.
What exactly does that mean? Again I quote Professor Wedderburn, who, the Solicitor-General says, is a dedicated leftist, or something like that. I can only assume that the Solicitor-General is a dedicated rightist. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like us referring to what Professor Wedderburn says. In the speech of 12th January Professor Wedderburn said:
Clause 87 would make unlawful sympathetic and other secondary strike and solidarity action which has been lawful in Britain for decades. Two leading professors at Yale Law School put it well when they said about the similar Taft-Hartley law in the USA, that curtailing secondary action makes unions 'enter the economic struggle with one hand tied'.
That is precisely what happened.
I should now like to quote another passage from Mr. Meany's letter to Mr. Victor Feather. He wrote:
Our legislation does not, however, by any means make all forms of secondary industrial action unlawful.' Indeed, questions of what sorts of secondary actions are permissible and what are illegal are the most complex and difficult to answer in our whole body of labor law.
That is going to be the position. We shall get into the most difficult and complicated situations in discussing this whole question.


10.15 p.m.
I do not care whether a strike begins as an official strike or as an unofficial strike or whether it starts as an unofficial strike and is made official. We do not always agree with unofficial strikes. Many of us have made statements to unofficial strikers urging them perhaps to take a different line of action. But we have always regarded the right to strike—any form of strike—as one of the most important principles of freedom. It is a principle which The Spectator pointed out a few weeks ago as being undermined by the Bill. It warned us, "Be careful as to what is happening in this country". That principle is not a dangerous philosophy. The dangerous philosophy is that of the Government, who are slowly but surely eroding fundamental rights in this country which have been built up by the trade union movement and by democrats throughout the centuries.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——

Mr. Heffer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I am coming to my conclusion. I am making the point that as far as we are concerned workers have the right to take industrial action to fight for better conditions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Heffer: Very well. I will give way.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman. He is talking from the Opposition Front Bench. He, as an official trade union leader, has just upgraded the value of an unofficial strike.

Mr. Heffer: I have not upgraded an unofficial strike. Nor have I downgraded an official strike. I have said that the right to strike, officially or unofficially, is one of the basic freedoms which the working people or any other people have in this country, and that this part of the Bill is taking away the right of workers to take that action without incurring the wrath of the law.
This can be the first step on a very difficult road which the Government are taking, and it is a very serious step. We have seen this sort of thing before in other parts of the world. The process begins like this. A right is eroded very slowly. Then the process builds up. When

there is a continuation of strikes—and this provision will not prevent them from taking place—voices on the benches opposite will be raised, as they are now being raised in the United States, to say, "We have to go further." The question of secondary boycotts is interesting in this context. In 1947, when the Taft-Hartley Act came in, there were very few illegal secondary boycotts. Then the Landrum-Griffin Amendment was introduced and the law was tightened up. Voices are being raised now saying that it should be tightened up even further.
Before we know where we are, we in this country will find that the trade union movemetn is completely tied up-—and all this despite the fact that hon. Members opposite, with their hands on their hearts, are constantly telling us that they are fair in their attitude towards the trade unions.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport): I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Liver-polo, Walton (Mr. Heifer) assert and acknowledge that there are many of us on both sides of the Committee trying genuinely to understand each other's point of view. I hope that he will he good enough to include me amongst them. I understand the reasons for some of the fears arising from the Clause. I can understand the uneasiness about the words "associated employer". But I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, and to other hon. Members opposite who spoke on the Amendment, that perhaps they are overstating the case on this Clause quite substantially.

Mr. Heffer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Percival: The hon. Gentleman wags his head. If, when I sit down, he is still wagging his head, I shall have failed to make any impression on him. But that should not deter one from trying. I do not challenge his sincerity, but in his peroration the hon. Member for Walton got a little carried away. He said the Clause is intended to tilt the balance wholly in favour of an employer. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we have sat and listened to some of their arguments, some of which might have made us laugh if we had not been considering the matter seriously.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian): He was not here.

Mr. Percival: I shall not rise to that, having been here trying all evening to make the point which I have been rising time and again to make.
The hon. Gentleman might consider the other point of view, that the intention and effect of the Clause is not to tilt the balance in anybody's favour, and most especially not to favour the employer.
What it does is to protect the person who has no part in the dispute from the damage which may be done to him and which may be extremely serious to him and to persons employed by him when he has no connection with it, when there is no fault on his part and when he has no interest. That is another way of looking at it. Is it necessarily wrong to seek to protect that person?
Of course we recognise that the right to strike is something which has been fought for and established, and we recognise it as a perfectly legitimate bargaining weapon and the right to strike is built into the Bill. But should there be a right to take action to damage an innocent party? That is what the Clause is all about. What we are talking about is whether it shall be an unfair industrial practice to take action against a person, who is not a party to the dispute and who has done nothing material in that dispute, for the purpose of injuring him and making someone else do what one wants, by inducing him to break a contract to which he is a party, perhaps with serious consequences for him, or to prevent him, a person not a party to the dispute and who has done nothing in connection with it, from performing a contract into which he has entered and by which he is bound and upon which his livelihood and that of his employees may well depend.

Mr. Orme: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say therefore that paragraph (b)—
to interfere with the performance by another person …".
is an accurate form of words to interpret this intention? Does he agree with that?

Mr. Percival: I am coming to that. What I have done is to say that this is what we are talking about, whether it should be an unfettered right for people to act in that way and so to cause harm

to people who are not a party to and have not taken an active part in the matter.
Having said that, I entirely accept that there is considerable room for discussion as to the precise terms of what is and is not allowed, and I believe that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has a substantial point in the wording of subsection (1)(b). I am sure that the Committee was much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for intervening much earlier on to say that he was not happy with it.

Mr. Orme: Why did he put it in?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: That iswhat the Committee stage is for.

Mr. Percival: I thought that that was what Parliament was all about—to discuss what was in a Bill. The House of Commons is often more generous than may sometimes appear and I hope that hon. Members will be quick to respond when a Minister in charge acknowledges that the wording is not satisfactory and that changes must be made.
I would suggest one other possibility. The Solicitor-General made it clear that the revised wording is intended to cover preventing somebody from performing his contract. He made it clear that it would not cover preventing somebody from entering into a contract. There is one other matter which arose in the Torquay Hotel case. A contract can often be determined by a week's or a fortnight's notice. I hope that it will be made clear in the revised wording that action to force somebody to terminate a contract which they would not otherwise have terminated will be among actions which constitute an unfair industrial practice. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who is concerned that this should not apply to any contract which is broken or interfered with quite incidentally as a result of a strike. However, we have had such a clear assurance that we need not spend more time on that matter.
I understand the misgivings about the use and definition of the phrase "associated employer". It is tolerably clear that because of the use of the word "only" this is not intended to have such wide repercussions as some hon. Members thought. I hope that the Solicitor-General in his revised wording will make


a little clearer that what is meant is that the mere fact that companies are associated shall not prevent somebody being an extraneous party; that there must be some greater connection than a mere association as defined. If there is a way of making it even clearer that that is what is meant, I should welcome it. We do not want to leave room for misgivings. May I as a lawyer say that the one thing we do not want to do is to leave room for argument and litigation—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The lawyers will make thousands out of it.

Mr. Percival: I thought that might raise a smile, but there are some of us who have a catalogue of the number of occasions when we have told this House that if it passes something in a particular form it will create work for the lawyers.
The House has usually passed it nevertheless and our point has soon been proved. We are as anxious as anybody to make sure that when legislation leaves this place it is intelligible. Let us accept that there is considerable room for improvement on the detail of the Clause.
What we are concerned with in this debate is whether or not it is right that any person, whether a trade union, unregistered organisation, or anybody else should be free to cause damage to an entirely innocent party in the furtherance of their own interest. I believe it is not right that that position should continue; that it is no infringement of anybody's liberty to say that should not be done. It is the barest protection which should be given to the other members of society who are in no way responsible for or concerned in the dispute.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for catching your eye at last, Miss Harvie Anderson. I do not mean that in any rude way. It was just an expression of relief, having sat here for nearly seven hours without being called.
The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) said that we on this side of the Committee were overstating our case and that perhaps some of the fears which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) outlined would not be realised or were far too great and that it was wrong to say that we were tilting the balance in the employers' favour. But I think that that is correct. I. do not think that the balance was ever tilted in our favour. I do not think that there was ever an equilibrium. The balance has not been "tilted" in the employers' favour; it has been "tilted further" in the employers' favour—much further.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the right to strike was built into the Bill. It is. It is walled up. The right to strike has been so limited and curtailed that we shall need the services of the hon. and learned Gentleman every time we have a dispute on the shop floor to be able to see our way through the maze of legislation and conditions which have been discussed before we can decide whether a person is entitled to withdraw his labour.
My trade union has a particular interest in this set of Clauses. The general workers' unions were built up purely and simply on the basis that they would be able to establish their right to strike and to take sympathetic action in order to protect one another. This was learned in Liverpool and other places from Connolly and Larkin, and it gave us our strength so that we could take on employers one by one and use our collective strength to protect ourselves. This right has been taken away by the Bill.
May I say how glad I am to see one of the Under-Secretaries of State for the Environment on the Front Bench. I hope that he will be able to give us some elucidation on the points raised earlier with the same success as he had last time. The Solicitor-General was some-

what shy when we were discussing Clause 86. He said that we should discuss certain matters on Clause 87. When we discussed Clause 87, some of the points raised were not answered by the Solicitor-General when he spoke to the Amendments. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could answer some of the points which are of considerable concern to us.
We started with a situation in which we had a primary employer in a dispute with a trade union, and we put forward a number of cases concerning lines 36 and 37 of Clause 86 and the interpretation being placed on line 4 of Clause 87. We said that if pressure were put on an employer directly to intervene—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to make a point?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A remark was made by an hon. Member opposite and I wrongly replied—for which I apologise to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member opposite said that I should sit on the Opposition Front Bench to make up the sparse numbers. I said that it was not the Opposition Front Bench but the Government Front Bench which needed reinforcement, and it would be nice to see the Attorney-General, who has never put his nose in the Chamber during the discussions on this Bill.

Mr. McNamara: I would say that my hon. Friend would be an excellent person to be there, considering how it was that the Leader of the House was yesterday persuaded to reserve for the Order Paper those iniquitous proposals to be put on the Statute Book.
To come back to what is far more serious, for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State I will repeat the situation. An employer has a strike on his hands. We come to the second employer. The second employer deliberately decides to go to the help of the first employer, who, for the purpose of this Clause, is not an extraneous party. We now come to the second situation. The second employer already has a contract existing with the first employer. A union brings pressure to bear on him not to fulfil his contract, because if he fulfils his contract the primary employer will not be damaged. Is that employer in that case, who is only normally fulfilling the contract, extraneous for this purpose, or not?


The third situation which arises is where the employer has a contract with another employer who is still in dispute, and then the other employer takes on a further obligation under the existing contract to make good losses which the employer in dispute is having as a result of the dispute which is going on. If a union brings pressure to bear on that employer who has the existing contract and has taken on a further burden, and if that employer suffers damage on his existing contract by virtue of taking on the extra burden, is that an extraneous matter under the Clause?
Fourth, what happens if in normal commercial negotiations there is a dispute and another employer negotiates a fresh contract with the employer in dispute and starts to perform it? Is he thereby endamaged as an extraneous person if a union brings pressure to bear upon the employer in order to prevent the employer in dispute from being successful in his dispute?
There are four fairly easy matters, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's reply to them.
The next point I want to make—and it is important—is this. We had a statement by the Solicitor-General, when he was talking about action taken under this Clause in relation to action under Clause 86——

Mr. Orme: Where is the Minister?

Mr. McNamara: With due respect to my hon. Friend, we have the attendance of the Under-Secretary, and we know how good he is in replying to these matters. I have no objection if the Minister is not here. He has not answered all our points before, and he has been in attendance for much of the debate and, therefore, I think it is quite fair that he should get some refreshment. It is not our intention to starve out the Government, though there are rumours that the Department of Health and Social Security is doing that with the families of strikers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the hon. Member allow me to disabuse hon. Members about the situation? The hon. Member surely knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is involved with negotiations over the Post Office dispute. I will say no more than that. I think the Committee would at least ex-

cuse him on that ground. The Solicitor-General, who will be replying to the debate, is having a very brief break, having sat here since 3.30 this afternoon.

Mr. McNamara: I am glad to know that the Secretary of State is not deliberately an extraneous party to the debate. I accept that he is engaged in serious negotiations, and I am glad his Department is working on conciliation, which it has failed to do for so long. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General has been here all day, and that he has attempted to answer our questions, but he has failed to do so.
The Solicitor-General said that if sympathetic action was taken in support of a strike by a registered trade union which was originally unofficial, that secondary action was unfair industrial practice. However, if the trade union executive made that strike official, the unfair industrial practice which constituted the secondary boycott became official, and the actions of those people were one minute regarded as unofficial and the next minute as official. But in a constitutional strike which later becomes unofficial, the secondary boycott is at first official and legitimate and then becomes unofficial. So the answer is a banana. What is the logic of this? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) said that we had been talking midsummer madness about the Bill, but the Solicitor-General made confusion worse confounded by his attitude.
Under the Bill, action which is not official industrial action is unfair, and if unfair action is taken by a registered trade union, that union may be liable to pay damages of up to £100,000. But when a trade union which is not registered or a group of people take part in an action which may at one time be legal and become illegal, or at one time be illegal and become legal, where will the quantum of damages and the limitation be placed? We are making an ass of the law.
To take this one stage further, two unions may be involved in a dispute. For the sake of argument I assume that they are both registered and that the dispute is legal. One of those unions may recognise the dispute and the other may not. The workers may belong to two separate


unions. If one group of workers belongs to the A.E.F., for example, and the A.E.F. recognises the strike, they are justified as a secondary industrial boycott. But say they are members of the Transport and General, which does not recognise the strike. They can say: "We support the A.E.F. which is an official strike but not the unofficial T.G.W.U. strike because if we do we shall be subject to the penalties of the Bill." It is a banana. Whichever way you go you slip on it.

Mr. Kinnock: It is a lemon.

Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General is making the law asinine and is in danger of bringing the whole of the law into disrepute. Law can so easily be destroyed by actions which are shown to be so class-motivated and against the working class. Weighting the scales in this way is not a new idea. I would like to read a quotation from the debate on the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill on 30th May, 1911:
It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought into contact with the courts, and it is not good for the courts. The courts hold justly a high and, I think, unequalled prominence in respect of the world in criminal cases, and in civil cases between man and man, no doubt, they deserve and command the respect and admiration of all classes in the community, but where class issues are involved, and where party issues are involved, it is impossible not to pretend that the courts command the same degree of general confidence. On the contrary, they do not, and a very large number of our population have been led to the opinion that they are, unconsciously no doubt, biassed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1911; Vol. 26, c. 1022.]

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Who said that?

Mr. McNamara: Winston Spencer Churchill.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I thought it would be a good Tory.

Mr. McNamara: The former Prime Minister had to some extent overcome the effect of his original sin.
Not only are these Clauses basically unfair, not only do they hit at the strong, but they hit those in small institutions who cannot look towards a greater institution to protect them. More than this they show the bias contained in the Bill.
Employers can pay into a strike fund to indemnify themselves against a strike but if a trade union wants to help a strike fund it will be punished. What happens if trade unions say that they will have a general strike fund to be used at their discretion in industrial disputes? Will this be caught by the Bill.
I see the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) shaking his head. Does he wish to say something?

Mr. Tom King: I am shaking my head because I do not believe that this is a problem in the Bill.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 86 he will see that the provisions for a strike will have to be drawn very carefully. If there is a collection, like the whip-round we had for the Post Office workers or in support of a strike, then the people doing that are likely to be caught by the Bill. I ask the Minister to look at these problems and give me the answers. We want to know the Government's intentions.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes): The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) described this problem as "a banana". But it appeared to me that the greater part of his speech was concerned with Clause 86. In Clause 87 the secondary boycott applies to both fair and unfair actions, whereas there is a distinction in Clause 86.

Mr. McNamara: Clauses 86 and 87 are interlinked. Though hon. Members on this side tried to raise these points when we were discussing Clause 86, the Solicitor-General said that we would be dealing with them when we came to Clause 87. In view of that, though some of us wanted to speak on Clause 86, we held our fire so that we could raise these matters on Clause 87. That is the point.

Mr. Mawby: I make no complaint about it, because the hon. Gentleman made some fair points. I wish merely to make it clear that it is Clause 86, and not 87, which differentiates between a fair and an unfair dispute.
We have been discussing whether the words in the Clause will be construed in the way in which this Committee would wish. In other words, this is a matter, first, of the intention, and then of the wording necessary to ensure that our intention is put into effect. My hon. and


learned Friend has assured us that he will look closely at several parts of the Clause to which his attention has been drawn. In view of that, I am inclined to leave the lawyers to argue about the wording, and I am no lawyer.
As for the intention, it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) cite the case of the Imperial Hotel, Torquay, versus the Transport and General Workers' Union. He described it as a legal ruling. However, in my part of the world it was a little more than a decision of the court, because it affected the future livelihoods of many people.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, Clause 118 will prevent the courts entertaining another case of this sort, and, if they do, they will be unable to reach the same conclusion. For that reason, it is important to know what the case involved.
It was about an inter-union dispute. The Municipal and General Workers' Union had organised catering workers in Torquay for many years. The Transport and General Workers' Union came along——

Mr. McNamara: And had the most members.

Mr. Mawby: We have to remember what we have been told by hon. Members opposite so often. They maintain that the voluntary solution of these problems can be safely left to the T.U.C. What happened in this case was that not only was the T. and G.W.U. in dispute with a number of hotels, but it operated a secondary boycott against the Imperial Hotel and also against a number of smaller hotels which had nothing to do with the dispute. No employer could find a solution in any event, because it was an inter-union dispute and had to be resolved by the unions concerned.

Mr. Heffer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I was citing a legal judgment and not discussing the rights and wrongs of the dispute. Will he also agree that some employers will make agreements with those whom they regard as tame unions, and then, when another union secures a majority of members, they argue that their agreement is with the tame union, even though it has the smaller membership?

Mr. Mawby: I do not think that any members of the M.G.W.U. present tonight would be inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman's reference to its being a tame union. [Interruption.] Is it a tame union? This was the inference. If not. I apologise.
I have known of staff associations, for instance, which have been and would be the type of organisation to which one would refer as "tame" and to which employers can say, "There is no need for us to recognise you as another bona fide union because we have one." I accept that point.
To return to my point, the hon. Gentleman was either suggesting or inferring that the M.G.W.U. was a tame union. [Interruption.] If not, we can forget about that particular argument.
There were two bona fide T.U.C. affiliated unions in dispute with each other. The M.G.W.U. had had recognition agreements with the hoteliers of Torquay over many years. Then the Transport and General Workers' Union walked in and declared that it would organise Torquay. The Transport and General Workers' Union has a perfect right——

Mr. McNamara: rose——

Mr. Mawby: —to be in dispute with a particular employer, and it has its own ways and means of pursuing that matter. But many hoteliers in Torquay not involved in that dispute in any way had their businesses damaged because the Transport and General Workers' Union operated a secondary boycott by preventing fuel oil and other supplies going to other hotels. In common decency——

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose——

Mr. Mawby: —surely no one would suggest that people who have no quarrel or connection with a dispute ought to have their businesses endangered by a secondary boycott.

Mr. Rose: Is it not right that the decision in that case was that there was no trade dispute and, therefore, the Transport and General Workers' Union did not succeed? If so, what is the need to change the law?

Mr. Mawby: We have been reminded that under Clause 118 the power of the


civil court to deal with these matters is to be restricted, because there will be other ways to deal with them. Had the Imperial Hotel not had the funds to entertain a court case—most of the other hotels would probably not have taken the risk—I question whether it would have got to court at all. Yet many hoteliers who were not involved in the primary dispute were put in extreme danger.
The Clause will at least cover that point. A small employer will not have to ask the civil court to make a decision and, because of different legal opinions and decisions in various cases, not know until the case has been decided how much expense he has incurred in trying to pursue his protection, as was proved in the Imperial Hotel case. There could be another case which could go the other way, and Clause 118 takes away the right to take it up in a civil court. This is a much more sensible way of doing it.
11.0 p.m.
The principle of the Clause has been explained time and time again. Where some other employer is closely connected, either as a party to the dispute or as having taken action in material support of the primary party, the Clause will not apply. There would be complete justification for a secondary boycott being operated in that other company because it was materially connected with the original dispute.
On the other hand, where one has organisations, companies, and small businesses which have no connection whatever with the dispute and which can do nothing about it because it is none of their business, unless the Clause is there they could be damaged and even put out of business by a secondary boycott, although they could do nothing about the dispute. Some rewording will be needed, but the principle of the Clause is correct in protecting those not materially connected with a dispute from a secondary boycott.
My hon. and learned Friend has given an undertaking that we can look at this again on Report, but the principle is good and it will prevent some unfair damage in certain circumstances.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) set off on a long road in explanation of the Torquay case, but gave his case away because when it went to law the Transport and General

Workers' Union lost the case. Why, then, should he want to change the law by the Bill if such cases are already trapped by existing law?

Mr. Stainton: What about the expense?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member might tell us what expense the new Industrial Courts will cost the country with the salaries of High Court judges and the paraphernalia which will surround them.
The question of secondary boycott and blacking of work is germane to industrial solidarity in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) earlier said that this was a vital industrial activity which was not practised to extreme in this country, but there are occasions when it is necessary.
The Roberts Arundel case was given as an instance. It was a classic case. That was an engineering firm producing engineering equipment for the cotton industry. It employed skilled engineers. The interesting thing was that the firm would not become a member of the Engineering Employers' Federation. The voluntary code of conduct that exists between the trade unions and the Federation would have prevented the very things that happened at Roberts Arundel. It would have preserved the basic right of trade union recognition and basic negotiating rights. These are agreed by established firms as being fundamental rights that operate throughout the engineering industry.
Secondary boycotts arise in most cases with firms that are non-federated. They are normally small firms; very often the employers are of the militant type, who take an individualistic view of trade unions. They adopt a 19th century attitude. In consequence, disputes often arise.
In the South-West the workers in an engineering firm recently went on strike for about nine months—not on the question of trade union recognition but as a result of a wages case. My union paid the strike pay for nine months, and in the end had to impose a levy on its members. It circulated all the branches of my organisation asking that all the work coming from that firm should not be handled—in other words, that it should be blacked. There was no calling out of


members of the union in the other firms. That is why the Solicitor-General has worded the Bill in such a way as to catch action other than strike action. The members of the union were not called out and were not instructed not to handle the sub-contract work; they took their own decision.
Apparently it is all right for an employer to send out his work for subcontract in case of a dispute; he is covered by the law. But if a trade union tries to prevent that sub-contract work being done it is acting outside the terms of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) mentioned the protection that exists for employers' indemnity funds in Clause 87(3). It is an affront to the trade union movement that in the very Clause that takes away some of the basic rights of trade unions and penalises them for taking secondary action the employers are having their position strengthened. It is incredible.
There is no defence for that sort of thing. Nobody objects to an employer having an indemnity fund, like a trade union's strike fund, but if the hon. Member for Peterborough and the Solicitor-General think that the provisions of the Clause represent an evening out of the imbalance between unions and employers their idea of natural justice is different from that of my hon. Friends and me.
I turn to the question of preventing secondary boycotts, and the effect that that has had in the United States. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was found to be not strong enough, so the Landrum-Griffin Amendment was brought in. In November, 1969, I was in the United States—in California—when the General Electric Company strike was on at Los Angeles and San Francisco. I visited some of the firms involved and talked to the men on the picket lines. I found that an official dispute was taking place throughout the whole of the General Electric Company's factories in the United States, involving about 148,000 employees, who were out for about six months. They were forbidden to ask for support from other unions, such as the Teamsters, who were bringing in supplies. The President of the Teamsters told me that they were liable to a fine of about 50,000 dollars a. day if they told their members not to take goods in. It

was far stricter even than that; if any of his members acted unilaterally, the union was still responsible.
Ironically, the effect of this was to extend the length of the dispute. We all know the figures for the length of the official disputes in the U.S.A., and one of the reasons is that, because of the rigours of the law, unions in a dispute cannot take secondary action. This tends to solidify the situation: the employers sit it out and the unions have to do the same.
We are always being told about the detrimental effect of strikes on the British economy. The British economy. unlike the American, cannot sit out strikes. If we want to rejig our union structure so that there are frontal industrial battles lasting for months, not weeks, in the central heavy industries, this is what the legally binding contracts and procedure agreements tend to bring. They bring rigidity, because there can be no movement throughout the period of the deal in question.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Member makes this comparison between the position in the United States and the position here. In the automobile industry in the United States, there are, at the end of probably a three-year agreement, these long strikes, which may run, normally, for six or eight weeks—perhaps longer, but that is the normal length. Our own automobile industry lost in 1970 very roughly 25 per cent. of production through strikes. That is 10 weeks in one year. I suggest that six to eight weeks in every three years is preferable.

Mr. Orme: I do not have the comparative figures here now, but hon. Members recognise that the American strike record last year was about three or four times as bad as our own. The disputes now in the United States are by unions which are acting illegally under American law—by school teachers, refuse collectors, policemen and so on. The hon Gentleman can see from the comparative figures what I am getting at.

Mr. Heffer: In his very interesting booklet, "Greener Grass", on page 47. Mr. Lowry says:
If anything that I have written in this report should give the impression that unconstitutional strikes do not take place in the U.S.A., this must be corrected. Wild cat


strikes, as they are called, do take place, and are becoming a cause of increasing concern.
So, despite all the legal paraphernalia, they still take place and still cause concern.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend underlines what I have said by calling in aid Mr. Lowry, who has wide experience in industrial relations on the employers' side.
What would be the position if secondary action were to be taken by a registered or an unregistered trade union—let us say it was my union, the A.E.U.W.—circularising its branches asking members to black work done at a certain firm—for example, Fine Tubes? This would be the case of a firm producing a commodity and having sub-contractors which were not directly concerned in the dispute.
What would be the position if my union had a ballot of members in a district asking them to contribute money with a view to supplementing the strike pay of members on strike? Would that be construed as a secondary act, and would the union be liable? What would be the position if a multi-national company or a large combine with plants in different parts of Great Britain and abroad decided, because of a dispute, to transfer work to a plant abroad? Fords decided to transfer work from a plant in Britain to a plant at Ghent. The workers took action, because they did not want the work to go to Ghent, as the matter had not been cleared properly in the British plant. They warned their brethren in Europe to this effect.
The Solicitor-General usually bristles when we mention Professor Wedderburn.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. and learned Friend has only said that Professor Wedderburn is not the last word on everything. The professor is an authority, but by hon. Members opposite he is quoted as though he is a paragon.

Mr. Orme: He is a good authority. His analysis of the situation is as good as that which can be introduced on the Bill. The Solicitor-General does not like the professor's politics. We do not like the Solicitor-General's politics, but we do not question his right to be Solicitor-General, nor do we assert that he is not an adequate or qualified lawyer.

Some of the lawyers opposite seem to think that Professor Wedderburn has escaped from the trap and is not playing the game. We pray the professor in aid because he is a most valuable and outstanding authority on American and British law.
Who is to explain the meaning of Clauses 85 to 87 to rank and file trade unionists and shop stewards? The Solicitor-General would not be a good person to send on that errand. Much more will be heard about these Clauses, because people will be trapped by them when seeking to exercise their fundamental trade union rights. These Clauses will probably be some of the first Clauses which will impinge upon the trade union movement. The unions should study these Clauses in great detail. We can merely vote against this matter.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I intervene only to make a brief comment on the doctrine or principle of interference, which has had some rough treatment during the debate, and to take up two observations which fell from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in what I freely concede was a carefully considered opening speech.
The subsection dealing with the matter of interference is comparatively friendless, and I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has expressed himself as not content with the drafting. For my part, having looked at it, I find the drafting wide and somewhat imprecise. One hon. Gentleman earlier quoted an observation of Sir Winston Churchill in his Liberal days. I can express my view of the drafting in terms of an observation of Sir Winston Churchill in his Conservative days: I can without difficulty confine my enthusiasm within the bounds of decorum.
But the criticism has gone a good deal wider than the drafting. It has gone to the principle, and I wish now to point out that this principle has a better background of respectability than might have been thought from some of the comments made.
The hon. Member for Walton quoted the passage in Lord Denning's judgment in the case of Torquay Hotel Company v. Cousins, in which he said:
The time has come when the principle should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach".


The hon. Gentleman did not like those last words, but it is fair to say that the reason for their incorporation was that there was in the contract for the delivery of oil between the Imperial Hotel and Esso an exception clause, a force majeure clause, which freed Esso from liability for non-fulfilment of contract to supply due to labour dispute.
It follows, therefore, where there is a force majeure clause of that kind that, however great or gross the interference, there can never be any breach of contract. I imagine that that is the reason why Lord Denning expressed himself in that way.
If it had been a lawyer who had said, "We must look only at whether there was a breach of contract between the parties," we should have come under instant attack from hon. Members opposite, who would have said, "You must not look at this just within the narrow confines of commercial contract. That shows your lawyer-like predilection for these things." But I am turning the tables on the hon. Gentleman. It is he who, at any rate by implication, is now saying that we must look at it in that narrow form, and it is I who, though a lawyer, am saying that we must not look at it merely like that but must look at it in its broad social context. That, I think, was what Lord Denning was doing.
The other observation that the hon. Gentleman made was that the principle of interference was, in effect, a revolutionary departure in the law relating to these matters.

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose rose——

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I realise that when the hon. Gentleman made that observation it was a case of "The hand is the hand of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob", because I realise that he was being prompted. Nevertheless, he was doing it very well.

Mr. Rose: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is nothing if not amusing. Does he agree that this emphasises the point being made throughout on this side that the implication of giving such wide powers to the judiciary as are being given to what is, in effect, a new industrial branch of the High Court is that the judiciary will be able to make law, just as Lord Denning made law in that case by extending the concept of a breach of contract

to the concept of interference with contract?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think not. The hon. Gentleman is really inviting me to anticipate the content of the next Clause, which, unhappily, we probably shall not be able to discuss. I should be out of order to do so. I would only say in parenthesis that this is all very reminiscent to me. I heard all the same arguments about these matters when I stood night after night at the Dispatch Box 14 or 15 years ago with part-Ministerial responsibility for the passage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, when we set up the Restrictive Practices Court. Not only did we win in the Division Lobbies, which is important; not only did we win in argument, which is more important; but, most important of all, we won by the test of time and the practical experience of the workings of that Court. Therefore, I must reject the hon. Gentleman's argument on that.

Mr. Heffer: I should like to set the record straight about my quotation from Lord Denning. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) had no knowledge that I would raise that point.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In that case the hon. Gentleman did even better than we thought. When the long days and laborious nights of this Committee stage are over, it is not too late for him to read for the Bar. If he joins the Middle Temple and wants a Master of the Bench to sponsor his application and testify to his credentials, I should be only too happy to oblige.
The principle of interference has a longer ancestry than perhaps we would think from the hon. Gentleman's remark about its being a revolutionary departure. The original concept of inducement to break a contract goes back about 120 years to the case of Lumley v. Gye. If the concept of interference does not go back so far, at any rate the words are found in the celebrated trade union case of Quinn v. Leathem at the turn of the century. In that case the principle was that each of the parties has a right to have the contractual relations with the other duly observed. The judgment there contained the following passage:
It is a violation of legal rights to interfere with contractual relations recognised by law if there be no sufficient justification for interference.


It is right and proper to say, in explanation of a very good contemporary judge, that it is against that background that Lord Denning made his dictum. But, of course, he did not suggest that interference should be written into the law simply in that general, abstract and undefined term. On the contrary, as we would expect of him, he defined quite precisely the requisites that there must be to constitute interference. There must be, first, a preventing or hindering; secondly, the interference must be deliberate; and, thirdly, the, interference must be direct.
11.30 p.m.
These matters do not seem to have been written into the Clause as it stands, and it may be for that reason that my hon. and learned Friend was dissatisfied with the drafting. But I feel that it is right that the Committee should have in mind that the concept of itself in the most strictly defined and more limited form is a respectable concept, and it may well be that, if it is defined by reference to these essential ingredients to which Lord Denning referred, we can, as the House of Commons, properly give statutory effect to the gist of what he said in the Torquay case—that the common law would be seriously deficient if it did not condemn such interference.
It is the business of Parliament to buttress and reinforce the common law by Statute when it is so required, and that is what, when put into proper form, this Clause, as I see it, seeks to do.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Eadie: I cannot hope to emulate the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) because, as must be obvious, I am not a lawyer. But at one point in his charming and witty speech he talked about being "not content", and I thought that perhaps he had some nostalgia for another place. Some of us exercised a self-denying ordinance on the Amendments to this Clause, and I intend my remarks on the Clause to be brief so as to give other hon. Members a chance to take part in the debate.
The Solicitor-General said earlier that he had been persuaded to some extent

that Clause 87 was unsatisfactory in its drafting. However, I have since become somewhat worried in that perhaps some of his hon. Friends are beginning to persuade him that the Clause does not, after all, need so much redrafting. I hope that he will confirm that he will reconsider the drafting. Indeed, I hope that he will eradicate the Clause altogether.
If Clause 87 is implemented, many good, God-fearing, decent people will probably be in dispute and in violation of the law for the rest of their lives. I want to give a simple example. Sympathy strikes have been mentioned. I have referred before to my experience in the mining industry. One can get sympathy strikes of such a nature that if one were to suggest to the men that they were in violation or in dispute with the law, one would arouse a great deal of ire and would. in fact, probably cause more industrial disputes.
There was an old tradition in the mining industry whereby whenever a man was killed the pit was idle for that day. This was done for two reasons. The first was that, with the daily toll in the mines, a death was something which people—not only the miners—were distressed about. Secondly, the miners believed that it was the only way in which they could make their protest and teach management to make sure that conditions were safe.
But they withdrew their labour at a cost to themselves. As time went on, not the management but the union tried to alter that. We tried to persuade miners that we would build up a fund, that there would be contributions from management and union to ensure that dependants received additional compensation. I speak from vivid experience, for my father was killed in the pit.
It was difficult to implement that scheme. Sometimes we can manage to persuade the men, but lawyers never will. I have had the experience of going to the pit and meeting men walking off the night shift saying that they were going home because John Smith or John Brown had been killed, that they had been saying for weeks that the area was unsafe. They are not always justified, but they go home as a protest.
The Solicitor-General may institute fines and penalties on men going home,


but they fine and penalise themselves by doing so, for, because of the bonus shift system, they lose more than one day's pay. But they do so as a token of their respect to the individual who has been killed and as a protest against unsafe working conditions. No lawyer in the House of Commons could solve that problem, nor compel the miners to work in a section in which a man has been killed if they feel that they will not work, not even if they are penalised, put in gaol and lose their furniture.

Mr. Tom King: I appreciate the hon. Member's deep feelings on this matter, but it is not lawyers who will do the compelling but the attitude of the employer. Has he any reason to expect a different attitude?

Mr. Eadie: I do not want to be distracted from my theme. The hon. Member must have heard the contributions of eminent legal gentlemen who suggest that we can solve the problem in a context of legality, within a legal framework. I assume that when he was fighting the General Election the hon. Member himself spoke about a legal framework for industrial relations. I am saying that industrial relations is a human problem which cannot be dealt with in a legal framework.
I should like to allow time for more hon. Members to speak and I shall curtail what I would have said about the sympathy strike. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said about these disputes. In the mining industry the men take the view, "If you injure one, you injure all." We have had many unofficial disputes, and there have been many in which I have tried to persuade men to go back to work and try to negotiate. I was an official at an unofficial strike. I defend the right to go on unofficial strike, for sometimes there is an increase in productivity as a result and sometimes there is an improvement in the relationship between management and men.
Under this Clause, managements will be able to indemnify themselves, but if a pit is on strike and the families of the men are suffering, miners in that part of the coalfield will be in violation of the law if they take up a collection for those families. This is a tradition. We have

had it for 100 years. Even if they are 100 per cent. wrong, miners will not allow men, women and children to suffer hardship because of money problems.
If the Government put this Clause into operation, they will put many decent, God-fearing people in such a position that they will violate the law. We were elected to uphold parliamentary democracy and to represent the people. It will be a serious violation of parliamentary democracy if we pass the Clause, never mind the Bill, and place people in such a position that, through no fault of their own, they are in breach of the law.

The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge the obvious sincerity and force with which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) addressed the Committee. I underline what I have tried to make clear throughout our proceedings. We are not seeking to introduce a law to regulate or transform human relationships in an unrealistic way or attempting to deal with the human and real problems about which the hon. Gentleman was talking. There is no suggestion of remedies being brought to bear against individuals leaving their place of work in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman described. There is no possibility of remedies being sought or invoked against people leaving their place of work or being persuaded to do so on grounds of safety. It is inconceivable that any lawyer will advise under these provisions that proceedings should be commenced against people leaving the coal face in the circumstances described by the hon. Member. It is not our intention, it is not a possibility and it is not the objective.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee fully appreciate the explosive conditions in which industrial disputes can sometimes occur, provoked by misconduct or incompetence by management or by dangerous or adverse conditions. The Bill is not designed to check, and will not have the effect of checking, the ordinary right of industrial protest. But we cannot accept the way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) invited the Committee to approach the problem. He put the matter as widely as this: the right to strike in any form of dispute and to call


any form of strike is basic and fundamental and cannot be tampered with. That is an unrealistic and, I suggest, unacceptable proposition in this day and age.
We live in a country in which the balance of industrial bargaining power is not so adverse to organised labour or to workers as it was 50 or 60 years ago when the law first took its present form. We live in a society in which people are more and more interrelated, and the harm which can be done by precipitate and unnecessary calling of industrial action outweighs the advantage, which can be secured for anyone concerned in it.
We suggest that it is reasonable to see in what ways the balance needs to be altered. The Committee deceives itself if it does not acknowledge that in almost every other sophisticated modern industrialised society the right to call strikes does not exist in such an unrestrained and unrestricted form as it does in this country.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Solicitor-General: I have not very much time. Whatever hon. Members opposite may say, I am not seeking to advance a system of industrial relations comparable to that which prevails east of the Iron Curtain. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Poland?] The hon. Gentleman talks about Poland. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Spain and Greece?"] Hon. Members opposite must try to live in the real world. Time and again in these proceedings we have had fanciful speeches suggesting that we are taking the first step towards the corporate State. One does not even understand what this concept with which we are being charged is meant to mean.
11.45 p.m.
All we are doing is looking round at almost every other comparable country facing the same kind of industrial problems in the second half of the twentieth century and recognising that balances and checks upon the freedom to induce industrial action are different almost everywhere else and that we are getting further and further behind the field in the industrial race. It is for that reason that we introduce these proposals here.
In the context of this Clause my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) both gave a very clear exposition of the basic object of the Clause, and the description of the Torquay case indicated why it is necessary to get away from the maze through which the Torquay hotel proprietors were able to steer themselves. I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for his own very clear exposition of the object of the Clause and his explanation of the words of Lord Denning which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton quoted.
The intention here is to provide a remedy in respect of procuring deliberately and directly a breach of a contract or deliberately and directly interfering with the execution of a contract. That is the objective, and there is no novelty in trying to achieve that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport asked me to confirm that it was not intended to restrict strikes designed to prevent entry into a contract. That is not the intention. He invited me to look at the effect of calling strikes intended to bring about the termination of a terminable contract. I will look at that. It is obviously an example taken from the Torquay hotel case. He commented—I have taken a note of what he said—on possible misunderstanding of inclusion of the words "associated employers". Again, the key to the inclusion of those words is the proposition that somebody shall not be taken to be supporting by reason only of the fact that he is an associated employer by reason only of the fact that he is a member of the employers' federation.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith): Then can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee why in Clause 86, when dealing with workers, it is "aiding and abetting" but that when dealing with the employers' side, in subsection (2)(b) of this Clause, it is that
he has not … taken any action in material support of a party
to the industrial dispute?

The Solicitor-General: Because I suggest to the Committee that taking any


action in material support is a much wider concept than the rather narrower proposition of aiding and abetting, and the employer who has taken any action in material support of another employer party is immediately in jeopardy in this situation. That is certainly the way in which I read it.
The comparison which might also be made, and has been made by some hon. Members, is the fact that the employer is not to be regarded as supporting by reason only of the fact that he is contributing to a general strike insurance fund, and the parallel to that is that the worker or organisation which is contributing ordinary membership dues whether to the organisation itself or to a federation of workers' organisations is not for that reason supporting or giving assistance to any particular strike.
I was asked about the extent to which a strike levy amongst the workpeople, either in a given town or in a given group of industries, is raising money to produce funds for workpeople elsewhere on strike. That would not be indirect or supporting action because it would not be action taken to call a strike because it was intended to aid and abet a strike which was unfair. It would only be making money available to people taking part in a strike and would not in itself give rise to any difficulties at all.
I was asked a number of questions about the Roberts Arundel case, and I hope what I say will not be misunderstood. That case has a long and particularly complicated factual history, with an emotive background, and I will not answer the questions with specific reference to that case. It is right to say in that kind of case that new recognition remedies would provide an alternative earlier remedy. There would be no restraint on any official strike which was subsequently called about the terms which the employer was offering, nor would there be any difficulty about calling a strike designed to persuade suppliers not to renew their contracts, nor on striking against people taking material action in support of the original employing company—

Mr. Orme: Does that include subcontracting?

The Solicitor-General: —I am coming to that next—nor on inducing action designed to prevent any new, fresh or further sub-contracting or giving material support to action designed to secure the breach of pre-existing agreements. So sub-contractors would be within the scope of the Clause. I hope that answers the hon. Member's point.
If I may come back to the more general point—

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend about what seems to us to be the exceptional position of employers in relation to strike indemnity funds and the allowability of contributions for tax purposes?

The Solicitor-General: I have already explained that contributions to a strike indemnity fund of a general kind are in the same category as contributions to a union's strike fund not directed to any particular strike. They are in exactly the same position.
On the question of tax liability, I cannot add anything to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in the answer he quoted. It depends no doubt on the structure and construction of the fund of the association or body. Far be it from me to challenge what the Financial Secretary said about that.
To come back to the central point with which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton began, he suggested that we are here out-Taft-Hartleying Taft-Hartley. Not so. The points made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) demonstrated how much further American legislation goes, so he says, in attempting to restrain secondary boycotts. It deals specifically with refusal to handle, refusal to deal with, refusal to deliver-blacking is very generally defined. The hon. Gentleman quoted the case of the long General Electric strike; but there is something odd about the criticism being made that we are going unduly far when, on the observations made by hon. Members opposite, it seems that we are not going anything like as far down that particular road, let alone many other roads.
We come back to the point that there is here a legitimate objective. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery


(Mr. Hooson) agreed that it was a legitimate objective, and invited us, as we shall, to look again at the formulation of the Clause. The hon. Member for Walton intervened to quote a sentence or two from Mr. Pat Lowry's book about the situation in the United States. He quoted the first two sentences of the paragraph which I am looking at now which sought to suggest that wild-cat and unconstitutional strikes are a problem in the United States, whatever system they may have there. He did not quote the immediately preceding sentences:
The great majority of strikes are constitutional and tend to be lengthy. What is more important, they are a contingency which can be precisely forecast in terms of time and, equally important, they can be planned against with great care. The impact of a strike of this character is therefore much less severe than the more frequent unconstitutional strikes which are so typical of the British situation.
It is precisely for that reason, against that diagnosis, that I invite the Committee to support the Clause.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order. Sir Robert. You will remember that when we were discussing Clause 86 you ruled that we could make a reference to Clause 87 but we should not go into details. On the basis of that ruling many of us who wished to raise points on Clauses 86 and 87, because we felt that they were linked, waited until the discussion on Clause 87. When Clause 87 came I was fortunate enough to catch your eye. The Solicitor-General said that he would answer questions on Clause 87 when he came to deal with it. He was not in the Chamber at the time, and I understand that, because he had been here for a long time, and, like the rest of us, needed some refreshment. However, I gave him four specific cases on which I asked for his legal opinion. I asked the Under-Secretary to take them down. I gave him a further number of cases on Clause 86 and raised points about a strike fund. At no time have we had an answer to these points from the Solicitor-General. With respect, you said that on Clause 86 we could refer to Clause 87 in passing. We did this, and we had an undertaking from the Solicitor-General that he would answer the points on Clause 87, but we have not had this.

The Chairman: I have the hon. Gentleman's point. I am able to say that

it is not a point of order, because I cannot control exactly what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. All that I can do is to say what would be in order and what would not. There is nothing that the Chair can do to assist the hon. Gentleman. I cannot compel the Solicitor-General to make his speech in a certain way. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing I can do.

Mr Rose: If the Solicitor-General refuses to answer my hon. Friend's questions, perhaps he will, at even this late stage, answer some questions. Would he say whether, in his view, under this Clause an ordinary supplier who knows that his supplies are bound to break a strike by giving material support will come under Clause 87(2)? Will he get up and tell us whether this Clause reverses the decision in Thompson and Deakin? Will he give his opinion? He has just got time to do that in spite of the guillotine.

The Solicitor-General: The question of an ordinary supplier, looked at in the context of Clause 87(2), depends on the words of Clause 87(2)(b). If the ordinary supplier is supplying ordinary supplies in the course of his normal trading relationship, then he has not, in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute, taken action in material support of the party to it. If he changes his trading pattern and begins doing work on a contracting-out basis or a sub-contracting basis, then he allies himself with the primary employer and immediately becomes exposed and cannot complain of strike action taken against him. The person who is following the normal pattern of trading is entitled to stand apart from the issues unless he takes some action to make himself a part of it.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman clarify this a little further? It really is a most fundamental point. What he is saying underlines my point. If there is a long-term contract and the contractor has the contract before the dispute takes place——

The Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Heffer: This is disgraceful.

It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Clause stand stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 255.

[For Division List 167 see col. 2023.]

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

Clause 88

ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP OF INDUSTRIAL COURT

12.12 a.m.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone): (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Robert. It will be within your recollection that I do not raise bogus or frivolous points of order. Indeed, I have raised only one point of order in the last six years. On this occasion I do so because it seems to me that until this point the Committee has for nine and a half hours behaved in a proper, constitutional and acceptable way to ourselves and the country.
We have reached a point in time where we have passed from that region of responsible behaviour to the region of utterly irresponsible—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Hon. Members will please allow a point of order to be raised in an orderly manner.

Mr. Lloyd: A vote has been taken and in that vote the Government have expressed their proper constitutional authority and the Opposition have expressed their proper constitutional disagreement. We have reached a stage where we pass

from solemn responsibility to farce and in the next few hours the Committee will wander round and round the Lobbies in such fashion that we do damage to ourselves, to the Government, the Opposition, to the reputation of Parliament and, above all, we are putting the House in a position where it is losing respectability and the respect of the country. I therefore propose that the House should now make procedure its servant and no longer be the servant of procedure.

Mrs. Castle: (seated and covered): Further to the point of order raised by the hen. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). May I support his point of order and his contention that we had a serious and constructive debate up to midnight, when the "chopper" fell, and that it is indeed making a farce of Parliament that at midnight this Committee should be expected to accept on the nod the whole of Part IV of this Bill—26 Clauses, all of them dealing with constitutional issues, all of them dealing with the setting up of a new court and giving new powers to industrial tribunals, not one item of which will have been debated by the Committee, with hon. Gentlemen opposite going through the Lobby like lobby fodder?

The Chairman: I am afraid that what the right hon. Lady is raising is not a point of order. I wonder whether what she has in mind—what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) had in mind, but could not get to either through force of circumstance—is that we might take the whole of these Clauses and vote for or against them en bloc. Is that what she has in mind?

Mrs. Castle: No, that is not my point of order. It is that it is not maintaining the dignity and rights of this House to vote en bloc 26 constitutional Clauses, a whole section of the Bill, without having debated a word of it. My point of order is that it is to make a farce of Parliament for Part VI to be voted in its entirety without a word of debate. I therefore call on the Leader of the House to give us more time to debate Part VI. for which we have had no time.

The Chairman: I am sure the right hon. Lady knows very well that that is not a point of order for me, that she and I and the whole Committee are governed by the terms of the Resolution


of the House as set out by the Business Committee. There is nothing we can do about that. In case the matter should be raised again, to save the time of the Committee, may I say—I know that this was not the right hon. Lady's point: this is me saying something for the moment—that it is impossible to take the Clauses all together and vote against them, because it is contrary to the practice of the House and could militate against the right of any minority, however small, to express its opinion against any particular Clause?

Mrs. Castle: It would be even better if we had time to debate it.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 283, Noes 249.

[For Division List 168 see col. 2027.]

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

EXTENDED SCOPE OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 246.

[For Division List 169 see col. 2031.]

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 90

COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 243.

[For Division List 170 see col. 2035.]

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR TO INDUSTRIAL COURT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPLICA TION UNDER S.77

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North): (seated and covered): On a point of order. On page 106 of the Bill it states quite clearly that certain parts of this Measure apply to Northern Ireland, but not all of it. Is it right, Sir Alfred, that Members from the Province should vote in all parts of the Bill, when only some parts of it affect their constituencies?

The Temporary Chairman: All hon. and right hon. Members may vote on all Measures.

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. When the point of order was raised, there were charges made from the other side of the Committee that the Committee might be behaving in a mischievous and irresponsible way. Could you help me to decide what is more mischievous and irresponsible than to vote on a serious Measure which does not affect the constituency which one represents? It is explicit in the Bill that it does not all affect Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask you, Sir Alfred, to reconsider your answer and to say that those Members who come from constituencies in Northern Ireland should not, in decency, vote on those parts of the Bill which do not affect the Province.

The Temporary Chairman: The answer which I gave to the hon. Member's first point of order shows that the hon. Members to whom he refers have a perfect right, if they so wish, to vote in the Divisions on this Bill. I must say that I had not noticed any mischievous behaviour, and that part of the hon. Member's question was not a point of order.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.

[For Division List 171 see col. 2041.]

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 93

COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR IN CON SEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 79

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 281, Noes 241.

[For Division List 172 see col. 2045.]

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 5 OR SECTION 20

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 240.

[For Division List 173 see col. 2049.]

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

COMPLAINT BY INDIVIDUAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER SECTION 62 OR SECTION 66, OR OF BREACH OF RULES

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 238.

[For Division List 174 see col. 2053.]

Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 96

COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 77

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 241.

[For Division List 175 see col. 2057.]

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

DETERMINATION OF COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 95 OR SECTION 96

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: (seated and covered):On a point of order. Is it in order for hon. Members to read newspapers in the Chamber?

The Temporary Chairman: No, it is not. Erskine May states:
Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places".
That applies while a Division is taking place. I must ask hon. Members not to read newspapers.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 279, Noes 240.

[For Division List 176 see col. 2063.]

Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 98

TRANSFER OF CASES BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS AND INDUSTRIAL COURT

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 236.

[For Division List 177 see col. 2067.]

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

APPEAL FROM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TO INDUSTRIAL COURT

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: (seated and covered): On a point of order. I have a very serious point to raise with you, Sir Robert. I have here for quotation purposes the early morning edition of a newspaper which says:
Ted Sacks Clegg.

Mr. Skinner: Who is Clegg?

Mr. Lewis: "Clegg" is the unpaid chairman of the Industrial Tribunal for the Civil Service. If some of my hon. Friends want to know who "Ted" is, it is none other than the Prime Minister. Had hon. Members opposite known that the Prime Minister was about to sack "Clegg" without any reason, obviously interfering with industrial relations, that would surely have affected their voting on this Clause. I ask that the vote should be held up until we have Ted here to give an explanation.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

Mr. Lewis: I do not know where he is.

Hon. Members: He is in bed.

The Chairman: Order. A little banter is not all that bad, but this has nothing to do with the Bill. We are bound by the Resolution of the House as set out by the Business Committee and all we can do is to get on with the work. There is nothing else we can do.

Mr. Lewis: With great respect, Sir Robert, you said that this had nothing to do with the Bill. However, you may have heard the Solicitor-General say that the Government would be fair and reasonable. Professor Clegg, a Government-appointed independent arbitrator, has been sacked. The Solicitor-General also said that the Government could be trusted to be honest and straightforward. Instead, they have shown that they are dishonest, crooked, and unfair. Surely the Committee should have some explanation before it votes on this Clause.

The Chairman: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but there is nothing that I can do as Chairman of the Committee to help him.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 277, Noes 238.

[For Division List 178 see col. 2071.]

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

OTHER APPEALS TO INDUSTRIAL COURT. 1913 c. 30

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 274, Noes 237.

[For Division List 179 see col. 2075.]

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Clause 102

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 275, Noes 237.

[For Division List 180 see col. 2079.]

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103

LIMIT ON COMPENSATION AWARDED AGAINST TRADE UNION

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Alfred. During the Second Reading debate, I asked the Under-Secretary of State


for Employed and Productivity whether legal aid would be available at the Industrial Court in respect of the matters on which we are now voting. He replied:
That is a matter which will have to be considered … I say quite frankly that I do not know the answer to that question but I will find out and tell the hon. Member. It will certainly have to be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1072.]
My point of order is this, Sir Alfred. Two months have passed since that reply was given, and we are now going through a process of voting on the part of the Bill dealing with the Industrial Court. Still no reply has been given to me, and no information has been given to the House. On the other hand, I understand from comments in the Press that certain assurances have been given to Conservative Members of Parliament who have raised exactly the same question, although the information has been denied to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
Is it in order to give that kind of reply and then make no statement to the House, yet divulge information to Government back benchers? Second, if we cannot have the argument here, would it not be in order at least to have replies to the questions which have previously been raised set out in a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, since we are denied the opportunity to debate them in the Chamber?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Much of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not a point of order. By a Resolution of the House we are bound to proceed as we are doing. The other matter is a point of opinion rather than a point of order.

Mr. Molloy (Seated and covered): Further to that point of order. The Committee must be in some dilemma, and this is a very serious issue. We are discussing something that will play an important part in the courts. It might involve people brought before them, and lawyers. The records of the House will show that it was the intention of one of Her Majesty's Ministers to make a statement to the House to clear up the point raised by my hon. Friend. If that is not done not only will the House and

the whole of jurisprudence in the land have been deceived but the whole nation will have been deceived. There will be no confidence in any such law which the House passes unless a statement is made.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion of his. It is not for the Chair to express an opinion on any of those matters. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. Can you help me, Sir Alfred? If this matter, which will affect millions of people for whom we are legislating, is not a matter for the Chair, can you tell me how I can safeguard both the interests of the people and the courts and the dignity of Parliament from such abominable behaviour by one of Her Majesty's Ministers?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a matter on which I, in my capacity of Temporary Chairman, can give the hon. Gentleman any guidance, but he is not new to the House and I am sure that he has the wit to find ways of raising these matters, about which he feels such concern.

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. I may have the wit to pursue this matter further, Sir Alfred, and I would ask you now if you would guide me on how we should send for Mr. Speaker to assist us in deciding this issue.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. This is a Committee of the House, and it is my duty to continue with the Committee proceedings.

Committee having divided:s 274, Noes 236.

[ Division List 181 see col. 208.]

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 104

LIMIT ON COMPENSATION AWARDED UNDER S. 92, s. 94 OR S. 97

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 236.

[For Division List 182 see col. 2089.]

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 105 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [25th January.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL MILK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

3.15 a.m.

Mr. James Hamilton (Bothwell): When the Chancellor made his statement on 27th October last and announced to the House that there would be a cessation of school milk to children at primary schools from the age of 7 there was a great deal of consternation on this side of the House. Arising from that, many of us have been addressing very many public meetings. At every public meeting without exception that I have addressed the question of school milk has been posed, because there is great anxiety about the reduction in the nutritional condition of the children who lose this liquid in the schools. At my last meeting, at Holytown in my constituency, one of the principals of one of the higher grade schools put a question to be about it, and coming as it did from such a responsible person it concerned me very much.
Consequently, I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland which was answered on 3rd February. It asked what action, if any, had been taken by the Minister to seek medical advice before he took this decisive step. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, replied for the Secretary of State and said that no medical advice had been sought. In fairness to him I should add that he did say that if medical advice was required it was, of course, available to him.
The following day, 4th February, I had a Question along the same lines to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science. In putting my supplementary question I reminded her that the previous Government, my

own Government, had ceased to give free milk to children attending secondary schools and that, much as I felt that that was a retrograde step, I was assured, and the House was assured, that medical advice had been sought before that action was taken.
In conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), he told me last night that the reply he had received was that if he ceased to give milk to children under 10 it could be a disservice to the health of those children. In fairness to the Labour Government I emphasise that they at least took some action, but the present Administration have taken no action at all.
Consequently, I feel, and many medical experts feel, that this step will be detrimental to the health of the children attending primary schools. The harm to the health of the children by the decision to stop school milk to the over 7s. is incalculable. The Government's decision is particularly ironic in that it follows a survey by the Queen Elizabeth College School and Nutrition Unit which revealed that only 32 per cent. of the 4,000 children studied could be regarded as having a satisfactory diet.
A total of 57 per cent. were regarded as unsatisfactory and eleven per cent. as poor. The third of a pint of milk allocated to primary children is a valuable source of calcium. Pupils up to the age of 12 with medical requirements and pupils in special schools will continue to receive milk, so it is difficult to see the logic of an assumption that milk is of benefit to the physical well-being of the mentally deficient but not that of other children.
The estimated saving in a full year is about £9 million. Yesterday morning, I spoke by telephone to Dr. McQueen, the adviser for the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, which did a survey in Renfrewshire in 1968 after my Government stopped milk in secondary schools. They found that 14 per cent. of secondary pupils and 9 per cent. of senior secondary pupils ate nothing before going to school, and 13 per cent. of secondary pupils and 13 per cent. of senior secondary pupils drank nothing before going to school. Most of these were in the lower income groups.


One person who has investigated individuals is Dr. George Lynch, of Queen Elizabeth College, London University. His report, presented in September, 1970, shortly before the Government's White Paper, showed that the withdrawal of milk from the primary school children surveyed would increase the percentage of those deficient in calcium to 34 per cent., assuming no compensatory change in food habits. This question is crucial. One considers what happened when we stopped milk to secondary schools. In 1968–69, the period during which that withdrawal came into effect, the sale of liquid milk declined by 18 million gallons. The Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, Sir Richard Trehane, attributed this decline to a rise in the price of welfare milk and to the withdrawal of free milk in secondary schools.
When I put the question to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon,-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short), the previous Secretary of State, asked in a supplementary question whether she was contemplating legislation to permit the sale of milk in schools, since we had been informed that this was possibly the Government's intention. The right hon. Lady replied that they were contemplating such legislation. I have had talks with the E.I.S.—not on an official basis but with many of its members—and they make it indelibly clear to me that they are not prepared to cooperate in this because it will be an added imposition on the work of teachers, and we all know that there is great difficulty in getting the required number of teachers, particularly in the secondary schools.
I am not trying to fly the flag of my party when it was in government, because I was bitterly opposed to the action which it took, but in fairness to the Labour Government I should say that I questioned my children after the decision had been taken and every one of them conceded that they did not bother much with milk at secondary school. I do not put that forward as a valid argument because many of the poorer families do not have the necessary milk supplied to them in their homes and this decision will have an adverse effect on the lower income groups. But when we made inquiries about primary school children it

was related to us that, in 1969–70, 91 per cent. of the primary school children were taking school milk and, since the introduction of the scheme in 1946 arising from the Education Act, 1944, a steady 90 per cent. of children were taking school milk. We must give careful consideration to this fact if we have any thought for our citizens of tomorrow.
It has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when this measure is introduced in the summer this year children who have reached the age of seven will continue to get free milk until the summer vacation. Some of the children will attain the age of seven during the summer period and after the summer vacation some children in the same class could be entitled to free milk but other children, because they are over the age of seven, would not. How will we tell the latter children that they are not entitled to free milk?
I ask the Minister to give very careful thought to this matter. There are many anomalies in this Government decision. It was a niggardly decision. The Government are playing with the health of the children. I want to thank the hon. Gentleman for being present, because I have kept him out of his bed and I have kept you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, out of your bed. But I do not make any apology for raising this subject. I feel strongly about it, and so do my hon. Friends. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to request the Secretary of State to retrace his steps and reverse this niggardly decision which will be detrimental to the well-being of our children.

3.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) for the way in which he has spoken on this subject. While some matters are raised in what I might call a political or controversial way, the hon. Gentleman has the merit of absolute consistency because he complained about the decision of the previous Government and he is now complaining about our decision.
Before I deal with the basis of the case, I should like to refer to two points which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He


referred first to the survey which is being conducted by Dr. Lynch, of the Social Nutrition Research Unit at Queen Elizabeth College. This report has still to be published. Dr. Lynch has still not published details of his research, and it cannot be commented on objectively until we have that report.
The hon. Gentleman then asked whether health departments have ever been advised that school milk must now be stopped for the under 10s. The departments seek advice from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. That body has never said to us or to any previous Government that milk is essential for children over seven or between seven and 10.
The basis of the hon. Gentleman's comments was to criticise the Government on two points: firstly, that we have decided to discontinue the indiscriminate supply of free milk to all primary pupils over the age of seven and, secondly, that before reaching this decision we did not consult the British Medical Association.
To take the second point first, so far as I am aware, it has never been the practice to consult the British Medical Association on matters of this kind. The normal practice has been, where this is necessary and appropriate, to consult the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, a United Kingdom body of recognised experts chaired by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science. On this occasion, however, no such formal consultation seemed necessary. We are not proposing to withdraw milk from all pupils over a given age—as the previous Government decided to withdraw it from all secondary pupils. We have made it clear that we intend that any primary school pupil of any age who requires milk on medical grounds will continue to get it free. Of course, all pupils in special schools, of any age, will continue to get it. Since the decision in regard to any particular child is to be left to the school medical officer, formal consultations were not necessary. It is, I think, significant, despite what has been said, that we have had no representations against our decision from any medical body. I appreciate, of course, that we have had representations, but, to my

knowledge, no medical body has made representations to us on this decision.
I turn now to the main issue. All of us recognise that school milk, at first at a nominal charge and since the war free of charge, has in the past helped to ensure the health of our pupils. But times change. We are not living in the 1930s or 1940s, and one-third of a pint of milk on 200 days in the year is no longer, in my view and that of my advisers, essential to ensure that our children are adequately nourished. It is perhaps desirable that the youngest pupils—up to the age of seven—should continue to get it, and there will be some older primary pupils who need it. It will still be provided for them. But we do not think that every other child needs this supplement to the diet provided at home and to the nourishing meals which are provided at school. In our view, this is a saving in public expenditure which can and should be made without any adverse effect on the health of our pupils.
In view of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said in this House, it should be emphasised that we shall keep the situation under review. We are setting up an adequate and effective monitoring system to check the effect of the change. This will be over and above the constant flow of information about the heights, weights and physical conditions of the many thousands of children examined each year by the school health service. That mass of information confirms what every hon. Member knows from his own observation—that the general state of our children's health is extremely high, and incidentally has improved greatly since the war without any increase in the daily supply of milk which a pupil is entitled to receive at school, so that attempts to argue for a simple cause and effect relationship are quite untenable.
I repeat that on this occasion we certainly shall maintain a monitoring system to check the effect of the change. All the best available advice which we have had is that no adverse effects should follow to our school children, particularly in view of the safeguard which we have put in about children who are indicated as requiring school milk. But, over and above that, we certainly shall be assessing the effects of the withdrawal.


I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his special interest in the matter, will keep in touch with us to hear how the monitoring system is working.
There is another point which I should make, because the hon. Gentleman raised it in his speech. One consequence of the action taken by the former Government in 1968—I am sure that it was unintentional—was that education authorities, in being relieved of the duty to provide milk for secondary pupils, were also deprived of the power to provide milk for them at all, free or on any form of payment. We intend to put this right in the legislation which we shall be introducing to give effect to our decision. In future education authorities in Scotland, and in England and Wales, will be empowered to provide milk, on payment, to any of their pupils. It will, of course, be entirely for them to decide if and how to make such provision—in tuck shops, through vending machines, or in any other way.
I am sure that local authorities will be conscious of the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the supply of teachers and the responsibilties which they have. This should give children not entitled to free milk, but whose parents feel that they should drink milk during the day, an opportunity to do so. Therefore, we are providing this new power to local authorities to sell milk, if they wish, so that children will have the opportunity to buy milk at school, if they or their parents so wish.
I and, indeed, all my colleagues, and the Secretary of State, who will take a keen interest in all that the hon. Gentleman has said, are conscious of his sincere feelings in the matter. However, I should emphasise that we are on this occasion making provision for children

who do need milk. This undertaking will be honoured.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh), Leith): Is it not statistically correct that, by and large, children in Scotland are smaller and less heavy than their counterparts in England and Wales? In these circumstances, does the Minister consider that this factor should be taken into account when it is proposed to discontinue the general supply of milk to Scottish children?

Mr. Taylor: I have not got actual statistics on this matter. I understand that this was the position and that a previous survey indicated something along those lines. On the other hand, it is fair to point out that the provisions which we have had in the past have applied equally to Scotland, England and Wales. We are conscious of the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But even if we take this into account—of course, things can change rapidly—such matters are often out of date before we get the information.
While some hon. Gentlemen opposite—I know the feelings of the hon. Member for Bothwell on this matter—feel that this was a wrong decision, I should emphasise that we are providing reasonable safeguards.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way that he made his remarks. Everyone in the House is aware that on the occasions when he speaks on matters of this kind, he speaks with knowledge and sincerity. Certainly on an Adjournment debate at this time in the morning the hon. Gentleman made an agreeable speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[12 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
McMaster, Stanley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Madel, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E,)
Mather, Carol


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Blaker, Peter
Green, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col, C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Molyneaux, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bray, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brewis, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Havers, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Nobel, Rt. Hn. Michael


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hicks, Robert
Nott, John


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Peel, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Percival, Ian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Cockeram, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudtoot, Wilfred


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Contain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kilfedder, James
Rhya, Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dean, Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Anthony
St. John-Steves, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W, (N'c'upon-Tyne, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Simeons, Charles


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith







Spence, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Sproat, Iain
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Warren, Kenneth


Stainton, Keith
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tilney, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Trew, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Stokes, John
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sutcliffe, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Waddington, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Tebbit, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Temple, John M.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Jasper More and


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Kelley, Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kinnock, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lambie, David


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom
Lamond, James


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Fred
Leadbitter, Ted


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Leonard, Dick


Barnett, Joel
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foley, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, Neil


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&amp;F'bury)
Golding, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackie, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Cohen, Stanley
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Meacher, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Healey, Rt.Hn. Denis
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Milian, Bruce


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Jeger, Mrs. Lena ((H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunn, James R.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie







Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Pendry, Tom
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pentland, Norman
Sillars, James
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Perry, Ernest G.
Silverman, Julius
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, George


Prescott, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Watkins, David


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Probert, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rankin, John
Steel, David
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Whitehead, Philip


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Richard, Ivor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roper, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James



Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Urwin, T. W.





Division No. 168.]
AYES
[12.12 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crowder, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Curran, Charles
Havers, Michael


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hayhoe, Barney


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hicks, Robert


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hill, John E. B.(Norfolk, S.)


Balniel, Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Batsford, Brian
Dixon, Piers
Holland, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holt, Miss Mary


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Biffen, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Emery, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald
James, David


Boscawen, Robert
Farr, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fell, Anthony
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fidler, Michael
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Foster, Sir John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fowler, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fry, Peter
Kimball, Marcus


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gardner, Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Kinsey, J. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Knox, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhart, Philip
Lambton, Antony


Carlisle, Mark
Gorst, John
Lane, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (P'thm'th, Langstone)


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Loveridge, John


Cooke, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
MacArthur, Ian


Coombs, Derek
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cooper, A. E.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McLaren, Martin


Cordle, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McMaster, Stanley


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)







McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Maddan, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Made!, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maginnis, John E.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tebbit, Norman


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Temple, John M.


Marten, Neil
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mather, Carol
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmond, Robert
Tilney, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Miscampbeil, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Money, Ernie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


More, Jasper
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Scott, Nicholas
Walters, Dennis


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilkinson, John


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nott, John
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Sproat, Iain
Worsley, Marcus


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stainton, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hn. George


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)



Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stokes, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Keith Speed.


Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John
Tapsell, Peter


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Forrester, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Atkinson, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, W. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Darling, Rt Hn. George
Gilbert, Dr. John


Barnes, Michael
Davidson, Arthur
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Golding, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Deakins, Eric
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Booth, Albert
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Dormand, J. D.
Harper, Joseph


Bradley, Tom
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Driberg, Tom
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Buchan, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Heffer, Eric S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack
Hilton, W. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Eddie, Alex
Horam, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
English, Michael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Clark, David (Calne Valley)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Hunter, Adam


Cohen, Stanley
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Janner, Greville


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Foot, Michael
John, Brynmor


Crawshaw, Richard
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)







Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Milian, Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Sillars, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Judd, Frank
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kaufman, Gerald
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Kelley, Richard
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Kinnock, Neil
Murray, Ronald King
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lambie, David
Ogden, Eric
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lamond, James
O'Halloran, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Latham, Arthur
O'Malley, Brian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Taverne, Dick


Leonard, Dick
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lester, Miss Joan
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Oswald, Thomas
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tuck, Raphael


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Urwin, T. W.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Eric G.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Wallace, George


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Watkins, David


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Weitzman, David


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Maclennan, Robert
Arthur Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Whitehead, Phillip


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Whitlock, William


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marks, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Roper, John



Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul B.



Meacher, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle u-Tyne)





Division No. 169.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James, Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Dixon, Piers


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Buck, Antony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Astor, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Eden, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Balniel, Lord
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Channon, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Chapman, Sydney
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Farr, John


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Biffen, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blaker, Peter
Coombs, Derek
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cooper, A. E.
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Cordle, John
Foster, Sir John


Boscawen, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Macus


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Fry, Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Braine, Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward


Bray, Ronald
Curran, Charles
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brocklebank-Foster, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul
Goodhart, Philip







Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley
Rost, Peter


Gorst, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David
Sharples, Richard


Grylls, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh &amp; Whitby)


Gummer, Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil
Simeons, Charles


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John


Miley, Joseph
Money, Ernie
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sutcliffe, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Tebbit, Norman


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Temple, John M.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Tilney, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Trew, Peter


Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Owen, Idris (stockport, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Peel, John
Waddington, David


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kilfedder, James
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kirk, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Warren, Kenneth


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Proudfoot, Wilfred
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Knox, David
Pyms, Rt. Hn. Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lambton, Antony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Le Marchant, Spencer
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Worsley, Marcus


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Longden, Gilbert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hn. George


Loveridge, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas



MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCrindle, R. A.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tleupon-Tyne, W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard


Barnes, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Joel
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B. Cunningham, G.
(Islington, S.W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davidson, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Booth, Albert
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)







Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fennyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Sillars, James


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt.Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Golding, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strauss, Rt, Hn. G. R.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, William (Fyfe, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomney, Frank


Hardy, Peter
Mendleson, John
Torney, Tom


Harper Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milian, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)




Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt.Hn. Charles
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. James Hamilton


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie





Division No. 170.]
AYES
[12.35 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Boscawen, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Sir Clive


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bowden, Andrew


Astor, John
Benyon, W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Bray, Ronald


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Balniel, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher







Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Phillip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Channon, Paul
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cockeram, Eric
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Coombs, Derek
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lambton, Antony
Simeons, Charles


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)




Soref, Harold


Dixon, Piers
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Sutcliffe, John


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)



Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fidler, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fortescue, Tim
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tebbit, Norman


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Fowler, Norman
Mather, CarolThatcher, Rt. Hn.
Mrs. Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John (Stradling (Monmouth)


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tilney, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Trew, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Waddington, David


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt, Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodnutt, Mark


Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John
Mr. Jasper More and


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Walter Clegg.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barnett, Joel
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Malley, Brian


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oram, Bert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orme, Stanley


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Palmer, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurie




Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hb'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, R t. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'cn&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J.D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roper, John


Cox Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthin)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Crosland Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Short,Mrs.Renée (W 'hampton, N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julis


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)




Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Edwin


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallaliell, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)




White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Whitlock, Williams


Foot, Michael
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruse
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. James Hamilton.







Division No. 171.]
AYES
[12.48 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Money, Ernie


Benyon, W.
Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Neave, Airey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Braine, Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Brewis, John
Havers, Michael
Nott, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Percival, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John




Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Iremonger, T. L. Pym, Rt.
Wilfred


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William ((Surrey, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Sprout, Iain


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Sutcliffe, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)







Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wilkinson, John


Temple, John M.
Waddington, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene



Trew, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr Reginald Eyre and


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Barnes, Michael
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W)
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cancannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay,Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, Denzil (LlanellY)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavit, Laurie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Peat, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Deakins, Eric
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)
Roper, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)







Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Sillars, James
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Frank
Whitlock, William


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Torney, Tom
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taverns, Dick
Watkins, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




Division No. 172.]
AYES
[1.1 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Dixon, Piers
James, David


Alison, Michael, (Bankston Ash)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Drayson, G. B.
Jessel, Toby


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, John
Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eden, Sir John
Jopling, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kallett, Mrs. Elaine


Balniel, Lord
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Kilfedder, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Benyon, W.
Fidler, Michael
Kinsey, J. R.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Biffen, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Knox, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fowler, Norman
Lambton, Antony


Body, Richard
Fox, Marcus
Lane, David



Boscawen, Robert
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bowden, Andrew
Gardner, Edward
Le Merchant, Spencer


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brains, Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Longden, Gilbert


Brewis, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Loveridge, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Goodhart, Philip
MacArthur Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
McCrindle, R. A.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy




McMaster, Stanley


Bryan, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Buck, Antony
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Burden, F. A.
Grylls, Michael
Maddan, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gummer, Selwyn
Madel, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Carlisle, Mark
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Channon, Paul
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray


Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Coombs, Derek
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Cooper, A. E.
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cordle, John
Miley, Joseph
Moate, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James


Costain, A. P.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernle


Critchley, Julian
Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Crouch, David
Holt, Miss Mary
Montgomery, Fergus


Crowder, F. P.
Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper


Curran, Charles
Hornby, Richard
Morgan Geraint (Denbigh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


d'Avigdar-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Murton, Oscar


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Neave, Airey







Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rost, Peter
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Normanton, Tom
Russell, Sir Ronald
Tilney, John


Nott, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sharples, Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pardoe, John
Simeons, Charles
Vickers, Dame Joan


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Waddington, David


Peel, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Percival, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Soref, Harold
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speed, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Walters, Dennis


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sproat, Iain
Ward, Dame Irene


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stanbrook, Ivor
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sutcliffe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Redmond, Robert
Tapsell, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman



Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Abse, Leo
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hilton, W. S.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Horam, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Doig, Peter
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie


Bager, Gordon A. T.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnes, Michael
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Joel
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunn, James, A.
Hunter, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Janner, Greville


Bishop, E. S.
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Booth, Albert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
John, Brynmor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
English, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Foley, Maurice
Judd, Frank


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Foot, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James




Latham, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Garrett, W. E.
Leonard Dick


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lipton, Marcus


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Cronin, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McBride, Neil


Dalyell, Tam
Hardy, Peter
McCartney, Hugh


Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McGuire, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackenzie, Gregor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Roy
Mackie, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackintosh, John P.


Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert







McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pendry, Tom
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Marks, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marquand, David
Prescott, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price, William (Rugby)
Tomney, Frank


Meacher, Michael
Probert, Arthur
Torney, Tom


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Tuck, Raphael


Mendelson, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Mikardo, Ian
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Varley, Eric G.


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Wainwright, Edwin


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roderick,CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Molloy, William
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, George


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshavve)
Rose, Paul B.
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)


Moyle, Roland
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Whitlock, William


Murray, Ronald King
Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


O'Halloran, Michael
Sillars, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oram, Bert
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel



Oswald, Thomas




Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. James Hamilton.




Division No. 173.]
AYES
[1.15 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)



Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cockeram, Eric
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Coombs, Derek
Goodhew, Victor


Astor, John
Cooper, A. E.
Gorst, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cordle, John
Gower, Raymond


Awdry, Daniel
Cormack, Patrick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Critchley, Julian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Balniel, Lord
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Crowder, F. P.
Gummer, Selwyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Curran, Charles
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Benyon, W.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Biffen, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Biggs-Davison, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Blaker, Peter
Dixon, Piers
Haselhurst, Alan


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hastings, Stephen


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Havers, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Bowden, Andrew
Eden, Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hiley, Joseph


Braine, Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Brewis, John
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fell, Anthony
Hornby, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bryan, Paul
Fidler, Michael
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John


Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.C.(Moray&amp;Nairn)




Carlisle, Mark
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fry, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Channon, Paul
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Gardner, Edward
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gibson-Watt, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.]
Jopling, Michael







Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Spence, John


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sproat, Iain


Kershaw, Anthony
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Kilfedder, James
Murton, Oscar
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kimball, Marcus
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Heave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stokes, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kirk, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Sutcliffe, John


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lambton, Antony
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Tebbit, Norman


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Loveridge, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tilney, John


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Trew, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tugenthat, Christopher


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


McMaster, Stanley
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Vickers, Dame Joan


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Waddington, David


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Madel, David
Rees-Davies W.R.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Maginnis, John E.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Weatherill, Bernard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rost, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Miller, Dr. M. S
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Scott, Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Michael (S'c'h'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Worsley, Marcus


Molyneaux, James
Simeons, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Money, Ernie
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


More, Jasper
Soref, Harold
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Allayn, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred


Atkinson, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Barnes, Michael
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foley, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Forrester, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, W. E.


Bradley, Tom
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr. John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Brown, Ronald (Shereditch &amp; F'bury)
Doig, Peter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Buchan, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dunnett, Jack
Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Eadie, Alex
Hardy, Peter


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Edelman, Maurice
Harper, Joseph


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)







Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert
Roper, John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rose, Paul B.


Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Sillars, James


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Creville
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


John, Brynmor
Molloy, William
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Roland
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tinn, James


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Murray, Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Kelley, Richard
Oram, Bert
Varley, Eric G.


Kinnock, Neil
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin


Lambie, David
Orme, Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lamond, James
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Latham, Arthur
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wallace, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Leonard, Dick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wellbeloved, James


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McBride, Neil
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)



McCartney, Hugh
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McElhone, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Donald Coleman and


McGuire, Michael
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)



Mackie, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)





Division No. 174.]
AYES
[1.26 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bray, Ronald
Costain, A. P.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Critchley, Julian


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David


Astor, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Crowder, F. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Curran, Charles


Awdry, Daniel
Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Balniel, Lord
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Batsford, Brian
Burden, F. A.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Dixon, Piers


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Drayson, G. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chapman, Sydney
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bitten, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Eden, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clegg, Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Body, Richard
Cockeram, Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Boscawen, R. T.
Cooke, Robert
Emery, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Coombs, Derek
Farr, John


Bowden, Andrew
Cooper, A. E.
Fell, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cordle, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy







Fidler, Michael
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fowler, Norman
Longden, Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Galbraith, Hn, T. G.
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott, Nicholas


Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gibson-Watt, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Scib'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Simeons, Charles


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Raymond
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maginnis, John E.
Soref, Harold


Green, Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Speed, Keith


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Grylis, Michael
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tapsell, Peter



Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Erne
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tebbit, Norman


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Hiley, Joseph
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Holt, Miss Mary
Mudd, David
Tilney, John


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hornby, Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Trew, Peter


Hornsby-Smith,Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia
Neave, Airey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peyton, Rt. Hn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Weatherill, Bernard


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kershaw, Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kilfedder, James
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wilkinson, John


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Raison, Timothy
Woodnutt, Mark


Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Redmond, Robert
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Younger, Hn. George


Knox, Davie
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)



Lambton, Antony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Carmichael, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Barnes, Michael
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Barnett, Joel
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cooks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cohen, Stanley


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bishop, E. S.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)







Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Deakins, Eric
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skinner, Denis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Taverne, Dick


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas,Rt.Hn.Ceorge(Cardiff),W.)


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomason, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Tomney, Frank


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Tuck, Raphael


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Alan Fitch.




Division No. 175.]
AYES
[1.40 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Batsford, Brian
Body, Richard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boscawen, R. T.


Allason, James (Hemet Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Sir Clive


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bowden, Andrew


Astor, John
Benyon, W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Bray, Ronald


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Blaker, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Balniel, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher







Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Buck, Antony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Campbell,Rt.Hn.C.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Channon, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsclale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Coombs, Derek
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooper, A. E.
Kimball, Marcus
Rost, Peter


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cormack, Patrick
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Cricthley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Curran, Charles
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lambton, Antony
Simeons, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid Sir Harry
Lane, David
Sinclair, Sir George


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid Maj.-Gen. Jack
Langford-Holt, Sir John
kSeet, T. H. H.


Dean Paul Lee Rt.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Le Merchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Dixon, Piers
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Dodds-Parker Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, G. B.
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, R. A.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eden, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Stokes, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Sutcliffe, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fell, Anthony
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Madel, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Fid[...]er, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Temple, John M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fowler, Norman
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tilney, John


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gardner, Edward
Mils, Peter (Torrington)
Trew, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbeill, Norman
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Godber, Rt, Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Goodhart, Philip
Moate, Roger
Vickers, Dame Joan


Goodhew, Victor
Molyneaux, James
Waddington, David


Gorst, John
Money, Ernie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gower, Raymond
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walters, Dennis


Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ward, Dame Irene


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Halt, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Wilkinson, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenhein, Mrs. Sally
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idrie (Stockport, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, James (Southampton, Teat)

Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Holland, Philip
Peel, John
Mr Hugh Rossi


Holt, Miss Mary
Percival, Ian








NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Murray, Ronald King


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Horam, John
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Robertson, Jahn (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roper, John


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kelley, Richard
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leonard, Dick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lester, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wainwright, Edwin


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Evans, Fred
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wallace, George


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foley, Maurice
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foot, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Golding, John
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gordan Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Alan Fitch.







Division No. 176.]
AYES
[1.54 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Astor, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Balniel, Lord
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Money, Ernie


Bell, Ronald
Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Morris, Charles (Devizes)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, R. T.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Bossom, Sir Clive
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Havers, Michael
Nott, John


Braine, Bernard
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Bray, Ronald
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Charmon, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jessel, Toby
Redmond, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)



Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lambton, Antony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dixon, Piers
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Drayson, G. B.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Soref, Harold


Eden, Sir John
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
McCrindle R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinhurgh,W.)


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, John


Fidler, Michael
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fortescue, Tim
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman







Temple, John M.
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wiggin, Jerry


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Waddington, David
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Tilney, John
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Trew, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hn. George


Tugendhat, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth



Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr Jasper More and


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foot, Michael
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackie, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnes, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert


Barnett, Joel
Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bishop, E. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaws)


Carmichael, Neil
Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Horam, John
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aheravon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Crawshaw, Richard
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Denzil(Llanelly)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest C.


Deakins, Eric
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James



Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur W. Ham N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, Tom
Lipton, Marcus Sheldon,
Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred
Loughlin, Charles
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius







Skinner, Dennis
Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wallace, George



Thomas,Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)





Division No. 177.]
AYES
[2.5 a.m.


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball, Marcus


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Awdry, Daniel
Emery, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eyre, Reginald
Kirk, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy


Balniel, Lord
Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Batsford, Brian
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knox, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fidler, Michael
Lambton, Antony


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Fortescue, Tim
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fowler, Norman
Le Marchant, Spencer


Biffen, John
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Blaker, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
Longden, Gilbert


Boardman, Torn (Leicester, S.W.)
Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John


Body, Richard
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Boscawen, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Bowden, Andrew
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Brainy, Bernard
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bray, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brewis, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForost)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin



Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grylls, Michael
Maginnis, John E.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gummer, Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bryan, Paul
Gurden, Harold
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mather, Carol


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Mils, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell,Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Molyneaux, James


Clegg, Walter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Money, Ernie


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Coombs, Derek
Holt, Miss Mary
More, Jasper


Cooper, A. E.
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cordle, John
Homily, Richard
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Contain, A. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Murton, Oscar


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Heave, Airey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholls, Sr Harmar


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Normanton, Tom


Dean, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Nott, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, C. R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)







Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Trew, Peter


Peel, John
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Percival, Ian
Simeon, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Pink, R. Bonner
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Soref, Harold
Waddington, David


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Redmond, Robert
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Reed, Laurance(Bolton, E.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sutcliffe, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Hn. Nichola
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wilkinson,John


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Rossi, Hugh
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Rost, Peter
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Younger, Hn. George


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Scott, Nicholas
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tilney, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Sharples, Richard
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Saiford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Eddie, Alex
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foley, Maurice
Lambie, David


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Michael
Lamond, James


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Lipton, Marcus


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McElhone, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Cronin, John
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hefter, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davidson, Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


de Freitas, Rt. Hn Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Meacher, Michael


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Doig, Peter
Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Millan, Bruce







Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Richard, Ivor
Tomney, Frank


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


Moyle, Roland
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Urwin, T. W.


Murray, Ronald King
Roper, John
Varley, Eric G.


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


O'Malley, Brian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oram, Bert
Shore, Rt, Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George


Orbach, Maurice
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, David


Orme, Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Oswald, Thomas
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Sillars, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pendry, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pentland, Norman
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Perry, Ernest G.
Stewart, Rt Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Prescott, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John



Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shiley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, William (Rugby)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Donald Coleman and 


Probert, Arthur
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. Alan Fitch. 




Division No. 178.]
AYES
[2.18 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Crouch, David
Havers, Michael


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Hicks, Robert


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Holland, Philip


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Holt, Miss Mary


 Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hordern, Peter


Bainiel, Lord
Dixon, Piers
Hornby, Richard


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Drayson, G. B.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, John


Benyon, W.
Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Iremonger, T. L.


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
James, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter
Jessel, Toby


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Boscawen, R. T.
Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bowden, Andrew
Fid[...]er, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Braine, Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kershaw, Anthony


Bray Ronald
Fortescue, Tim
Kilfedder, James


Brewis, John
Fowler, Norman
Kimball, Marcus


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fox, Marcus
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kinsey, J. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knox, David


Burden, F. A.
Godher, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lambton, Antony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Mark
Gorst, John
Legge,Bourke, Sir Harry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gower, Raymond
Le Marchant, Spencer


Channon, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Longden, Gilbert


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
Loveridge, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
MacArthur, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
McCrindle, R. A.


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McLa[...]an, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Cordle, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Willon, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin







Madel, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maginnis, John E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Prior, Rt. Hn. J, M. L.
Temple, John M.


Marten, Neil
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmond, Robert
Tilney, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Money, Ernle
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Walder, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


More, Jasper
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott, Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Wall, Patrick


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Ward, Dame Irene


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wiCk &amp; L'mington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Cranley
Speed Keith
Walrige-Gordon, Patrick


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Spence John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sproat lain
Woodnutt, Mark


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stainton Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stanbrook Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.



Percival, Ian
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peyton, Rt, Hn. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Garrett, W. E.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Armstrong, Ernest
Delyell, Tam
Ginsburg, David


Ashton, Joe
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnett, Joel
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Roy


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bradley, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunn, James A.
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Edelman, Maurice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
Huckfield, Leslie


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Mcrioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn(Anglesey)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Fred
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fernyhough, E.
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Janner, Greville


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cres,S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Stanley
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)







Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Judd, Frank
Molloy, William
Sillars, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Kinnock, Neil
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lamond, James
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Latham, Arthur
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Leadbitter, Ted
Murray, Ronald King
Stallard, A. W.


Leonard, Dick
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Lestor, Miss Joan
O'Malley, Brian
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Oram, Bert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orme, Stanley
Taverne, Dick


Lipton, Marcus
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loughlim, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Tinn, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomney, Frank



Peart, Rt, HN. Fred
Torney, Tom


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Tuck, Raphael


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wainwright, Edwin


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Marquand, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mendelson, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Millan, Bruce
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




Division No. 179.]
AYES
[2.29. a.m.


Adley, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Channon, Paul
Fowler, Norman


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Marcus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fry, Peter


Astor, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardner, Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David


Baker, Kenneth (St.Marylebone)
Cockeram, Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Coombs, Derek
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Goodhart, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordle, John
Goodhew, Victor


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Gorst, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Green, Alan


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dalkeith,
Earl of Grylls, Michael


Blaker, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gummer, Selwyn


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Gurden, Harold


Body, Richard
Dean, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Boscawen, R. T.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, Andrew
Dixon, Piers
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Braine, Bernard
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhust, Alan


Bray, Ronald
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hastings, Stephen


Brewis, John
Dykes, Hugh
Havers, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Hawkins, Paul


Brocklehank-Fowler, Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hicks, Robert


Bruce-GardyNe, J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Bryan, Paul
Emery, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Buck, Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John
Holland, Philip


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Holt, Miss Mary


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Fidler, Michael
Hornby, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia







Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hunt, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Iremonger, T. L.
Molyneux, James
Spence, John


James, David
Money, Ernle
Sproat, Iain


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stainton, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jopling, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Mudd, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tapsell, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kilfedder, James
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Kimball, Marcus
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Kinsey, J. R.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Kirk, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Knox, David
Peel, John
Tilney, John


Lambton, Antony
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Lane David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trew, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Proudfoot,Wilfred
Waddington, David


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McCrindle, R. A.
Redmond, Robert
Wall, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walters, Dennis


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


McMaster, Stanley
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wilson, Michacl
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wiggin, Jerry


Model, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilkinson, John


Maginnis, John E.
Rost, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Russell, Sir Ronald
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Mather, Carol
Scott, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Maude, Angus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mawby, Ray
Sharples, Richard
Younger, Hn. George


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Simeons, Charles
Mr. Jasper More and


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Tim Fortescue.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Driberg, Tom


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Armstrong, Ernest
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunn, James A.


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dunnett, Hugh


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Barnes, Michael
Coleman, Donald
Edelman, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Wedgwood Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Ellis, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Mitchael


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Evans, Fred


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,ladywood)


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davies, Denzil (LlanellY)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foley, Maurice


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foot, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Ronald (Shoreclitch &amp; F'bury)
Deakins, Eric
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Freeson, Reginald


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dempsey, James
Galprn, Sir Myer


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Doig, Peter
Garrett, W. E.


Cant, R. B.
Dormanct, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr. John


Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Golding, John







Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Griffith, Eddie (Brightside)
McElhone, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sillars, James


Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius


Horam, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Taverne, Dick


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff, W.)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n'&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland
Tinn, James


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Bert
Varley, Eric G.


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orme, Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wallace, George


Kaufman, Gerald
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Kinnock, Neil
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wellbeloved, James


Lambie, David
Pavitt, Laurie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lamond, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Leonard, Dick
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prescott, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lipton, Marcus
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Loughlin, Charles
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. Joseph Harper.




Division No. 180.]
AYES
[2.41 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Brewis, John
Crowder, F. P.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Curran, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dalkeith, Earl of


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Atkins, Humphrey
Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Burden, F. A.
Dixon, Piers


Balniel, Lord
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Carlisle, Mark
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Channon, Paul
Eden, Sir John


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Biffen, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Emery, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cockeram, Eric
Fell, Anthony


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Boscawen, Robert
Coombs, Derek
Fidler, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Cordle, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cormack, Patrick
Fortescue, Tim


Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus







Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John
Rost, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
Sharples, Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Simeons, Charles


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Green, Alan
Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grylls, Michael
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Soref, Harold


Gummer, Selwyn
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Gurden, Harold
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Havers, Michael
Mitchell,Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tebbit, Norman


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Tilney, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Trafford, Dr, Anthony


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


James, David
Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Jessel, Toby
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peel, John
Walters, Dennis


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Warren, Kenneth


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
Weatherill, Bernard


Kelfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilkinson, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kitson, Timothy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert
Worsley, Marcus


Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lambton, Antony
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Younger, Hn. George


Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Keith Speed.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt, Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Concannon, J. D.


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crawshaw, Richard


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cronin, John


Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, G. (Islington,S. W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Dalyell, Tam


Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davidson, Arthur







Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Batersea, S.)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edelman, Maurice
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-On-Tees)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


English, Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Fred
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles
Short,Rt. Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John
Stallard, A. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gording, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Taverne, Dick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Varley, Eric G.


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wallace, George


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Watkins, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Whitlock, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice



Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph harper and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur





Division No. 181.]
AYES
[2.53 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bray, Ronald


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Benyon, W.
Brewis, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biffen, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Astor, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Atkins, Humphrey
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Awdry, Daniel
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bryan, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Boscawen, Robert
Bullus, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Bossom, Sir Clive
Burden, F. A.


Batsford, Brian
Bowden, Andrew
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Bell, Ronald
Braine, Bernard
Carlisle, Mark







Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Jessel, Toby
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)


Cooper, A. E.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Curran, Charles
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith,
Earl of King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kinsey, J. R.
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kirk, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Sharples, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Lambton, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sinclair, Sir George


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Soref, Harold


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Eyre Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fidler, Michael
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stokes, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sutcliffe, John


Fortescue, Tim
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fox, Marcus
Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maude, Angus Thatcher, Rt.
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tilney, John


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeebshire,W)
Trew, Peter


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
Money, Ernle
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Grylis, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Gummer, Selwyn
More, Jasper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Well, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Ward, Dame Irene


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Warren, Kenneth


Haselhurst, Alan
Neave, Airey
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Wilkinson, John


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Wolrige-Gordon, Partrick


Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Holt, Miss Mary
Peel, John
Younger, Hn. George


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian



Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.







NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Golding, John
O'Malley, Brian


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Oram, Bert


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnes, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hardy, Peter
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Perry, Ernest G.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hilton, W. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Bradley, Tom
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rose, Paul B.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Sillars, James


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Spearing, Nigel


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lamond, James
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Davis, Clinton(Hackney, C.)
Leonard, Dick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Tinn, James


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Torney, Tom


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Tuck, Raphael



Lomas, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wainwright, Edwin


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Wallace, George


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Wellbeloved, James


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Whitlock, William


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Molloy, William


Foley, Maurice
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Foot, Michael
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Moyle, Roland


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Murray, Ronald King


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce



Garrett, W. E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Ginsburg, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Joseph Harper.







Division No. 182.]
AYES
[3.4 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger


Awdry, Daniel
Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernie


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Balniel, Lord
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bell, Ronald
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Boscawen, Robert
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bowden, Andrew
Hayhoe, Barney
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hicks, Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bray, Ronald
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Brewis, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Peel, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Redmond, Robert


Channon, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)



Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cockeram, Eric
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Coombs, Derek
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicolas


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lambton, Antony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dean, Paul
Lane, David
Simeons, Charles


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dixon, Piers
Le Marchant Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, R. A.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Stokes, John


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Tapsell, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fidler, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Galbraith, Hn. T, G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gardner, Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)







Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Trew, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Hn. George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard



Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
White, Roger (Gravesend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vickers, Dame Joan
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Tim Fortescue


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilkinson, John





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foot, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnes, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Barnett, Joel
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marquand, David


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Bottemley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healoy, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Ronald King


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hilton, W. S.
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)



Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Judd, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Roderick, Ceterwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
 Ross, Rt. Hn.William (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn, Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)







Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Taverne, Dick
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George(Cardiff, W.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Watkins, David



Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tomney, Frank
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Torney, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Kenneth Mars.


Tuck, Raphael
Whitlock, William



Urwin, T. W.
William, Alan (Swansea, W.)